IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- I & II CHRONICLES --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---ESTHER---PSALMS 1-73--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
Jesus Reveals Himself As The Coming One By His Acts of Power and His Proclamation Of The Good News (8.1-9.35).
In 11.4-5 Jesus sends to a doubting John in prison these words, ‘Tell John the things which you hear and see, the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf (kowphos) hear, and the dead are raised up and the poor have the Good News preached to them.’ By these words He answers the question, ‘Are You the Coming One?’ (11.3). It cannot be doubted therefore that one of the purposes of this section is to provide the material from which Jesus can say this. For in it:
On the other hand the order of incidents (they are not the same as in 11.3) and the fact that Matthew does not bring out the possible deafness of the dumb man in 9.32-34 demonstrates that this was not the primary determiner of the contents of this section.
That being said, however, it would seem clear that it was very influential in helping to determine its contents. Besides it may be that the dumb man was not deaf as well, but that that incident was the closest that Matthew could come to a healing of the deaf with the material at hand. This would then serve to demonstrate how accurate he was being historically. The parallels are otherwise undoubtedly quite striking.
So it cannot really be doubted that one main purpose in this section is to demonstrate, not only to John but also to Matthew’s readers, that Jesus is the Coming One. This is also emphasised by the titles applied to Jesus in the passage, ‘Lord’, ‘Son of Man’, ‘Son of God’, ‘Son of David’.
That being so it also has a second purpose related to this first. It is in order to demonstrate that ‘the Kingly Rule of Heaven is at hand’, for that has been the burden of all His preaching, teaching and miracles (4.17,23; 5.3, 10, 19, 20; 6.10, 33; 7.21), and will continue to be so (see 9.35; 10.7-8). Note especially the inclusio formed by 4.23 and 9.35. Indeed the ideas of the Coming One and of the Kingly Rule of Heaven go together, for John had gone ahead to prepare the way for the Coming One in the same way as the road was prepared ahead for royalty (3.3), and the light that was to shine in Galilee (4.16) was that of the Coming King (Isaiah 9.2-7). Furthermore it is His very power as given to Him through the Holy Spirit (3.11,16), where God declared ‘This is My Son’ (compare Psalm 2.7), that evidences that the Kingly Rule of God is present among them (see 12.28). Thus His purpose from 8.1 onwards must also be seen as being in order to demonstrate the presence of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. In the prophets the coming of the King was one of the things that would manifest the Kingly Rule of Heaven on earth (Isaiah 11.1-4; 32.1-4; Ezekiel 37.22-28).
Nevertheless, all that being said, it is immediately apparent that the aim indicated in 11.3, while helping to determine the content, has not determined the order in which this information is presented, as can be clearly seen above. So that is a question that we must now consider further in order to understand the full significance of the passage.
There is little doubt that Matthew has gathered these accounts together for a purpose. While much of the material is found in Mark, and some in Luke (although it is probable that the source that Matthew calls on is not Luke but the tradition on which Luke also calls) Matthew has deliberately put it in a different order, and while retaining its essential content, shapes it in order to present certain truths. It soon becomes apparent that he is not so much interested in a chronological history, except in general outline where he follows the same pattern as Mark, as in seeking to present Jesus as the Christ (1.1) from that history.
Thus he also makes no pretence of trying to follow a chronological order, except in general outline. Rather His interest is thematic, and He is seeking to present Jesus by means of a number of vignettes loosely combined together. In doing this he tends to leave out of the stories the padding that he does not consider necessary for his purpose, as a comparison with Mark will quite clearly bring out (one reason, of course, being the lack of space on his recording medium), while ensuring that he retains its central core truth. And he does this so regularly that we must beware of making too much of what he omits, for his reason for the omissions are regularly simply due to an awareness of lack of space.
One further factor that has to be taken into account in deciding the significance of the section, is, as we have seen earlier, that the section is included within two parallel statements, 4.23 and 9.35. The previous passage up to 4.23-25 ended with a descriptive passage including the words,
This section up to 9.35 ends with the words,
The parallel between these two verses, with slight variations, is quite apparent. And this is even more emphasised by the fact that in between these two passages Matthew has first given us an example of Jesus ‘teaching’ (5.3-7.12), and then an example of His ‘preaching of the Kingly Rule’ (7.13-27), and now follows that by providing examples of the ‘healing of all manner of disease and sickness’ under that Kingly Rule (8.2-9.34; with 12.28). This also confirms the central purpose in the section of presenting the arrival of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (compare 12.28).
Further, when the Apostles are sent out to proclaim the Kingly Rule of Heaven as ‘at hand’, Jesus expects them to ‘heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils’ (10.8). Combined with 11.5 this emphasises again that the healing of the sick, the cleansing of lepers, the raising of the dead and the casting out of demons are in Jesus’ eyes evidences that should be acceptable to others (and especially to John) that the Coming One has arrived and that the Kingly Rule of Heaven is being revealed, as is specifically stated in 12.28.
Various attempts have been made to determine Matthew’s thinking in his presentation of 8.2-9.34. These include:
1) The idea that he is seeking to parallel the ten wonders of Exodus with a view to continuing the portrayal of Jesus’ coming as the new Exodus (2.15, and see introduction). Thus ten healings are delineated: the leper; the centurion’s servant; Peter’s mother-in-law; quieting the storm; exorcising demons; the paralytic; the woman with the issue of blood; the raising of the ruler’s daughter; two blind men; the dumb demoniac. But this parallel fails because of the very limited connection between the plagues and these healings. Matthew in fact gives no indication of a connection with the plagues, or with Moses, nor do the miracles themselves in any way parallel them.
Nor also does the dividing up of the account encourage us to think that Matthew wanted us to see all the healings together as a series, for he puts within the series two narratives that divide the miracles up into subsections (8.18-22; 9.9-17).
Furthermore the number ten is far too prominent in itself for it necessarily to indicate the ten plagues. It could equally indicate connection with the ten patriarchs (a sequence found in Genesis twice over of two different sets of patriarchs); the ten commandments; the ten tribes of Northern Israel; the later ten virgins, and so on. Thus ten is too common a number to be able by itself to indicate a connection between two series of ten. So while there may be some significance in the fact that there are ten healings (although there are only nine healing stories, for the woman with the issue is an integral part of the account of the raising of the ruler’s daughter), namely the idea of ‘a complete set’, it must be seen as doubtful whether it connects with the plagues which were of a very different kind, even though they were equally miracles. Indeed as ‘ten’ regularly simply indicates ‘many’ (Genesis 31.7) we could thus argue that Matthew is simply stressing here that there were many healings, of which he is describing ten.
2). That the healing stories are in three sets of three (with the woman with the issue being an integral part of the raising of the ruler’s daughter, as it undoubtedly is). There appears to be a good deal to be said for this as our analysis will make clear. For in each case the sets of three are separated from each other by intervening narrative, and each set of three has other criteria which unite them. What is slightly more problematic is determining why the miracles were presented as they are, for to quite some extent they ignore chronological considerations.
One pattern suggested has been - Three miracles of healing (8.1-15), three miracles of power (8.23-9.8), and three miracles of restoration (9.18-34). But this really falls down on the fact that all are miracles of healing (in terms of the summaries above), all are acts of power, and all involve restoration. We could therefore switch the miracles round and still have used the same headings and division. The distinctions in this regard are on the whole more apparent than real. All are wonderful, but all are equally wonderful. And the same thing can be said to scupper other similar schemes. The differences of opinion indicate that there is no obvious explanation in this regard that has gained a consensus.
Nevertheless that there is such a pattern an examination of the section brings out. So in order to consider the matter further, we will seek to analyse the passage in summary, while trying at the same time to bring out salient points (although these will be seen differently by different people).
Analysis of 8.1-9.35.
There are a number of factors to be kept in kind here. The first is the chiasmus. Note that in ‘a’ He is followed by great crowds, and in the parallel He goes through their villages teaching, proclaiming the Kingly Rule and healing. In ‘b’ a leper is healed and is to show himself to the priest, and offer the required ‘gift’ as a proof to ‘them’ (the people), and in the parallel the dumb man is healed, the healing impresses the people, but the Pharisees reject it, imputing it to the Prince of demons. In ‘c’ the believing and faith of the centurion are emphasised and in the parallel the believing and faith of the blind men are stressed. In ‘d’ a woman is healed by a touch to the hand and she rose up, and in the parallel two women are healed, one of whom touches Him and the other is taken by the hand by Him and she rose up. In ‘e’ He has come as the bearer of infirmities and diseases, and in the parallel He is the Great Physician. In ‘f’ two disciples are considering following Jesus and in the parallel Matthew does follow Him without question. In ‘g’ Jesus stills the storm with a word and all men marvel, and in the parallel He heals the paralytic with a word, the crowds saw it and were afraid and glorified God. Centrally in ‘h’ He heals the two demoniacs who call Him the Son of God. And He is asked to leave the territory. (It is not yet time for full Gentile response).
Further points may be seen as emphasised in this passage which do help to stress its essential unity.
There is thus throughout an emphasis on His word of power and His touch of power, and this is all a part of the demonstration of His authority (8.3, 9, 22, 26, 32; 9.6, 9). He exerts His own authority by word and touch rather than calling even on the authority and power of God. This is especially brought out in 9.6. And even in the case of the dumb demoniac we are probably to understand that He cast it out with a word, for this story certainly reveals His authority, as the words of the people make clear (and so indirectly do the words of the Pharisees). Nevertheless the fact that Matthew does not draw attention to His word in this last example might be seen as demonstrating that while an important aspect of the passage it is not the overall controlling theme.
There are, however, on top of these, other discernible patterns. It has been pointed out that the first three miracles involve what might be seen as people of less religious importance, people not regarded as important in Judaism. There may also be an emphasis on uncleanness. Thus the first is a leper, and therefore ceremonially unclean and an outcast excluded from society. The second is the servant of a centurion, and therefore probably a Gentile and a bondslave, and certainly living in ceremonially unclean conditions (which is why the centurion recognises that Jesus might not wish to come to his house). Furthermore the emphasis is on the Gentile centurion and his faith. As a Gentile he is unclean and a ‘stranger’. The third is a woman who would be regularly unclean each month (which is one reason why the Pharisees prayed, ‘I thank You, O God that You have not made me a woman’). She is a member of an underclass (she is a woman). Furthermore her fever may well have been seen as making her unclean. Jewish Halakah forbade the touching of people with certain kinds of fever. Compare in this case how in parallel in the chiasmus are two women who could be seen as perpetually ‘unclean’, one because of her fever and the other because she was dead.
Thus one lesson from the first three incidents is that Jesus has come for the outcasts, for the Gentiles, and for women, and for the ‘unclean’. However another overall emphasis in this passage (8.2-17) is unquestionably on Jesus as the bearer of our infirmities and diseases (8.17). For these three healings lead up to a summary verse referring to many healings, and end with the quotation of Isaiah 53.4, ‘Himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases’. Matthew is indicating that in what He is doing the Isaianic prophecies are being fulfilled, and that Jesus is therefore the Servant of YHWH. For this see also 3.17 (compare 12.17 and Isaiah 42.1); 12.17 (compare Isaiah 42.1-30); 20.28 (compare Isaiah 53.10). He has come as the Sun of righteousness with healing in His wings (Malachi 4.2) following the arrival of ‘Elijah the prophet’ (Malachi 4.5), the latter being later specifically identified with John the Baptist (11.14). We should, however, note that this particular emphasis on His healings undoubtedly continues throughout the whole section, and we soon learn that forgiveness of sins is what lies at the root of His healings (9.2, 5-6, 12-13) and that He has come bringing something totally new (9.16-17).
The second set of three miracles in the section are deliberately connected by reference to the Sea of Galilee. In 8.23 ‘He entered into a boat’, in 8.28 we have ‘when He was come to the other side’, and in 9.1 He once again ‘entered into a boat’. And these are enclosed within two short passages referring to the calling of disciples, the first of which commences with ‘He gave commandment to depart to the other side’ (8.18) and the second of which commences with ‘and as Jesus passed by from that place’ (9.9). This demonstrates that they are a unity. And this is confirmed by the fact that each of these three miracle stories then end with three striking reactions, precisely because they are so remarkable: men marvelling at His authority (8.27); men begging Him to leave their vicinity (8.34); and men glorifying God Who had given such authority to men (9.8). We thus have both positive and negative reactions.
Furthermore they also reveal Him as having unique authority. By His word He has authority over storm and sea (8.26), by His word He has authority over the demon world mustered in large numbers (8.32), and by His word He has authority over sin (9.2, 6), three things seen in Israel as the great enemies of men, and as the things from which men needed most to be delivered.
The third set of three miracles end in His fame going all over ‘into all the land’ (9.26), His fame spreading abroad ‘into all the land’ (9.31), and the crowds marvelling and saying, ‘it was never so seen in Israel’, while the Pharisees declared that He was in league with the Devil (9.33-34). But in what further way are they connected?
These last three in fact follow an interesting sequence in another way. First we have the raising from the dead (a Messianic act, and connected in Isaiah with the Messianic Banquet - Isaiah 25.6-8). Then the eyes of the blind are opened (again a Messianic act - Isaiah 35.5). And then the tongue of the dumb speaks, something which is noticeably emphasised (a further Messianic act - Isaiah 35.5). See here ‘the eyes of the blind will be opened -- and the tongue of the dumb will sing’ (Isaiah 35.5-6) which follows Isaiah’s prophecies of the resurrection in 25.8; 26.19. Here then in Isaiah there is a picture of the future, when through the power of His resurrection to life He will open the eyes of those who cannot see (see 13.14-15), so that they speak out in His Name. (We can compare with this how Mark undoubtedly uses the narratives of the deaf and dumb man and the blind man who was healed in two stages as illustrations of the deafness and dumbness, and the blindness, of people in matters concerning Himself. Compare Mark 7.32-37 with Mark 8.16, and Mark 8.22-26 with both what follows and also Mark 8.16).
We may thus see in this whole section a gradual build up (note how he omits mention in the case of the leper about His fame being spread abroad) from healing and removal of uncleanness, to acts of great authority, to fulfilment of the Messianic dream, all resulting in His Name being finally spread abroad. The first three end in individual but blessed results: the leper goes to the priests to be declared clean, and to be accepted by God and man (8.4); Gentiles will in future be accepted by Abraham, and under God’s Kingly Rule (8.11-12); the woman rises to have the privilege of serving Jesus (8.15). The second three have a powerful effect on men’s attitudes towards Him. The first of these ends with awe at His power over nature, the second ends with awe at His power over demons, the third ends with awe at His ability to forgive sins and His power to make a man walk at His word. The third three specifically result in an increase of His impact, with His fame going everywhere (9.26, 31, 33). And thus does ‘the good news of the Kingly Rule of Heaven’, as promised by Isaiah, spread abroad (Isaiah 40.9 with 52.7. See also 61.1-3). By this it is demonstrated that ‘the Kingly Rule is the Lord’s’ (Psalm 22.28), and this last in connection with the suffering of His chosen King (Psalm 22.12-21).
The Titles of Jesus.
Finally we can consider the titles used of Jesus. In the cases of the leper (8.2), the centurion (8.6. 8), the would-be disciple (8.21) and the disciples in the boat (8.25) He is called ‘Lord’, and then after that not until 9.28 when it is by the two blind men who also call Him the Son of David. The address ‘Lord’ can indicate simple respect (like our ‘sir’), an address by a wife to her husband, an address by a student to a ‘Teacher’ (as to a Rabbi), an acknowledgement of superior authority, reverence as to a prophet, and it can finally signify the Lord of glory, with LORD (kurios) translating YHWH. But in Matthew it is only ever used outside parables by those who are favourably disposed towards Jesus, such as the leper (8.2); the believing centurion (8.6, 8); the unknown disciple (8.21); all the disciples (8.25; 13.51; 26.22); the blind men (9.28; 20.30, 31, 33); Peter (14.28, 30; 16.22; 17.4; 18.21); the Canaanite woman (15.22, 25, 27).
In these particular cases in Matthew 8 the term probably mainly points to Him as a revered prophet, or even more, for apart from the case of the would-be disciple they are all anticipating great miracles. And it is reasonable also to conclude that the constant repetition here is intended to be suggestive, so that Matthew, while using the term correctly to translate what was said, also probably intends us to gather the inference that He is the Lord of glory.
In this section also the demons call Him ‘the Son of God’ (8.29). This must be seen as having its full force, for the demons were in such force that they would have obeyed none less. (Exorcisers, if they had even attempted it, would have had to try to deal with them a few at a time, Jesus casts them all out with a word of command). Jesus also describes Himself twice as the authoritative Son of Man; once as the Son of Man come in humility and yet expecting obedience (8.20), and once as the One Who on earth has the authority to forgive sins (9.6). To the two blind men He is the ‘Son of David’ (9.27). He is also the Physician (9.12) and the Bridegroom (9.15), the latter specifically being a title that indicates that the Messianic age is on the brink. For more on these titles see in the commentary, and especially in the introduction under Titles of Jesus.
Introductory Words (8.1).
These words set the scene for what follows, and together with 9.35 form a partial inclusio for the passage. In them His ministry is seen to be a public ministry, and His mission is to the people.
8.1 ‘And when he was come down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.’
Having finished His teaching to His disciples, and those who had joined them, Jesus came down from the mountain back into the world. And the consequence was that great crowds gathered and followed Him around. We are intended to distinguish between the ‘disciples’ who followed Him and the ‘great crowds’. The disciples followed as those who had submitted to His Kingly Rule, the others followed in order to see His wonders and to listen to His parables. The specific purpose that Matthew has in mind in this passage comes out in that throughout the whole passage until verse 35 there is no mention of Jesus preaching. It is of course assumed. But Matthew wants our concentration to be on what Jesus is revealed to be in what happens. And He will again re-emphasise that Jesus is here as the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies (3.3; 4.14 and now in 8.17; compare also 12.17; 20.28) This connection with Isaiah also comes out in the whole picture of His role as proclaimer of the Good News, teacher and healer, and deliverer from demons, for which compare Isaiah 61.1-3 (specifically cited in Luke 4.18-19) and Isaiah 35.5-6.
Note also how in 8.18 the great crowds cause Him to leave Galilee and ‘go to the other side’, thus confirming that verses 1-18 form a subsection in themselves as He ministers in Galilee. We may analyse it as follows:
Note that in ‘a’ great crowds followed Jesus, and in the parallel He seeks to move away from the great crowds. In ‘b’ the leper says, ‘If you will you can make me clean’, and in the parallel we learn that it was so, whatever condition men were in, because He Himself had come to bear our uncleannesses. In ‘c’ He stretched forth his hand, and touched the leper, saying, I will, be you made clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And in the parallel He touched the woman’s hand and the fever left her. In the first case the man then ministered to God by his offering. In the second case the woman ministered to Jesus by offering herself to serve Him (compare Romans 12.1-2). In ‘d’ we have what happened when He ‘came to Capernaum’ and heard of the servant’s condition, and in the parallel what happened when He ‘came into Peter’s house’ and saw her condition. Notice how much closer and personal is both the woman’s service, she served Him, and Jesus’ regard for the woman’s need (He saw), because she is connected with those who are His own. In ‘e’ Jesus said He would go and heal the man and in the parallel He does heal him. In ‘f’ the centurion says that he is not worthy of Jesus’ response, and in the parallel is told that what matters is that he believe. In ‘g’ the centurion declares that men obey him, coming and going and doing as he pleases, and in the parallel Jesus in effect points out that men come, and do what He wants, and are also cast out, in accordance also with His will, in the heavenly kingdom. Centrally in ‘h’ Jesus expresses wonder at the faith of the centurion, a faith greater than any in Israel.
The Healing of The Leper : The Servant Bears Our Uncleanness (8.2-4).
Matthew abbreviates this story of the healing of the ‘Leper’, bringing out only the essential detail (compare Mark 1.40-45 for a longer version). For it is that essential detail that he wants to get over. And we will soon learn that Jesus sees the healing of lepers as part of the Messianic ministry and the ministry of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (10.7-8; 11.5). It is these things that make quite clear that ‘at hand’ means ‘about to break in on all who will hear His word’.
But note how Matthew omits the fact that after this healing His fame spread abroad. For he wants us to recognise that that process only happened gradually, and he thus leaves drawing attention to it until 9.26 onwards. This must also be seen as confirming that he sees 8.1 to 9.35 as one whole.
Leprosy is one of the things that the Coming One will remove from the Messianic Kingly Rule (11.5). Thus we are justified in seeing in this leper a picture of the world defiled and unclean and waiting to be delivered. ‘He has torn and He will heal us, He has smitten and He will bind us up’ (Hosea 6.1; compare Jeremiah 8.22; 46.11). Sin and its consequences are depicted in the Scriptures in terms of disfiguring disease, illness and uncleanness (Isaiah 1.4-6; compare Psalm 38.3-8. Consider also Isaiah 64.6). This healing is therefore a reminder that Jesus can heal each one of us of the leprosy of sin if only we will come and beseech Him to do His will and make us clean.
Note how in ‘a’ the leper comes to Jesus, and worships Him, and in the parallel he is told to go to the priest and offer his gift to God. In ‘b’ is the confidence of the leper that by His will Jesus can make him clean, and in the parallel Jesus confirms that he is right and heals him. In ‘c’ and centrally He reaches out and touches the leper. The Coming One reaches out to the lowest of the low.
8.2 ‘And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean”.’
‘Behold.’ This is probably to be seen as opening the whole series of incidents. Matthew is saying, ‘look now at the kinds of things that He did’. He wants to bring out that what now happens is significant (compare 1.20). But it also introduces the main character in this story (apart of course from Jesus).
Jesus is approached by a skin-diseased man (not necessarily Hansen’s disease, i.e., what we call leprosy). We can almost feel the shock that ran through those who were there. Such men were not supposed to approach a crowd of people. They were seen as dead men, ‘the living dead’, and banished from human society. For the Law declared, ‘All the days in which the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled. He is unclean. He will dwell alone. Outside the camp will his dwellingplace be’ (Leviticus 13.46). His clothes had to be torn, his hair dishevelled, his upper lip covered, and as he moved around he had to cry, ‘Unclean, unclean’ (Leviticus 13.45). The medical necessity for this was clear, but for the person himself it was devastating.
In Jesus’ day such skin-diseased people were not allowed to enter walled towns, and in the synagogues a small chamber would be set aside for their use, approached from the outside. They were, however, allowed to live in unwalled towns as long as they lived in their own houses. Most Scribes and Pharisees, if they saw a skin-diseased man would hasten off in the other direction, lest his uncleanness affect their ritual purity. He was not allowed to approach within two metres/yards (four cubits) of ordinary people, and they would keep to his windward side, otherwise when there was a wind he had to keep fifty metres/yards (one hundred cubits) away. If he entered a house it would be rendered instantly unclean.
To approach a group of people in this way the man must have been desperate. And yet he must have had great faith in this prophet. It says much for Jesus’ reputation for compassion that the leper felt that he could approach Him at all, for a prophet might well curse such a man as he, for daring to approach Him. And, no doubt keeping the regular two metres/yards distant, he fell on his face and ‘made obeisance’ to Jesus. The word can mean ‘worship’ in the fullest sense, but can also signify the payment of homage and respect. The latter was probably the attitude of the skin-diseased man, although homage of the deepest kind, but the former was probably in the back of Matthew’s mind. The difference between homage and worship is very often clouded, and regularly homage includes a certain level of worship.
The words of the skin-diseased man are powerful. ‘LORD, if you will, you can make me clean’. In his isolated world he had had much time to think, and word would have reached him and his fellow-lepers, through relatives and friends who brought them food, of this amazing prophet and what he was doing for people. Possibly he had even heard Him speak in the synagogue. And he had become convinced that here was One with unusual powers, who had the power to remove this dreadful scourge. But he had also recognised that it would all depend on His willingness and His will. He was a great Prophet. Would He even want to bother Himself about the living dead? Would He exercise His will on his behalf? The way that he phrases it demonstrates the uniqueness that he saw in Jesus. ‘If you will.’ This is as decisive a claim to Jesus’ authority as we will find anywhere. By His will He has the power to make clean.
‘Clean.’ The word conveys the depths of his despair. He was not only permanently diseased, he was unclean. He was a total outcast. His condition was one despised by men, it rendered him unfit for society, it prevented more than a limited approach to God, for it barred him from the Temple. To be made clean would be such a transformation of his life as was indescribable.
But what does he mean by ‘Lord’? The word is especially significant here as it is not found in Mark’s account (although included in Luke). It is probably a recognition of His greatness as a true prophet with amazing powers, as so often in this section. He recognises in Jesus someone Who is outstanding and has unusual supernatural power (compare 8.25). People in desperate circumstances are often made to face up to what powers are necessary in order to save them in a way that others are not. And this man knew how deep his need was. Matthew, however, wants his readers to recognise the implication behind the word, that this One is LORD indeed, in the fullest sense.
8.3 ‘And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, “I will. Be you made clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.’
We too should pause and worship as we consider this sentence and weigh up its significance. For in it we see compassion, and mercy, and thoughtfulness, and willingness to consider the most lowly of men, and on top of that power beyond expression. It summarises in its brief scope a manifestation of unique tenderness, together with a miracle of outstanding proportions.
‘He stretched forth His hand and touched him.’ We can be sure that everyone else was backing off and keeping well away from this grotesque man, and they were no doubt waiting for Jesus to draw back and bid the man remember Who and What He was. No doubt the man was expecting it as well. And then the unbelievable happened. To the amazement of all present the Prophet actually stepped towards him and touched him. Apart from fellow-lepers no one had touched him since the day that his skin-disease had been confirmed. He must have been simply astounded. And no doubt all who followed Jesus were horrified. Not being aware of the depth of feeling about such cases we cannot appreciate how horrified they would have been. They would be as turned to stone.
Here we have the first reference in Matthew to Jesus’ touch of power. It will be repeated a number of times in this passage. But in no other case will it produce the shock that it produced here. It was just not done to touch an obviously skin-diseased person. It was almost like touching the dead, and totally destructive of ritual purity.
And then Jesus said, “I will. Be clean.’ We note that Jesus did not reply in the way that others would have expected. He did not say, ‘You mean if God wills.’ He accepted that the man had seen what others had not seen, that all depended on His will. And so He spoke His will, and said ‘Be clean.’ The voice that had once said, “Let light be” (Genesis 1.2), now said ‘Be clean’. It was the voice of the Creator, Who alone could restore a man from such a condition. Following the touch of power came the word of power, His powerful creative word (Hebrews 1.3).
A healing like this had happened once before to a man who had been in such a condition for a long time, but there the prophet had kept away from the skin-diseased man and had not touched him. And he had bid him go and wash in the Jordan, leaving the cure in God’s hands (2 Kings 5.1-19). But a greater than Elisha was here, One Who could Himself directly remove uncleanness. It is a reminder that Jesus can make all men clean when they come to Him (John 13.10; 1 John 1.7).
‘And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.’ The change was apparent to all, and none more so than the man himself. We will not try to put into words what he thought. It was beyond words. The whole of his awful past had rolled away. The pain of years had fallen away. He was clean. All traces of his dreadful disease had gone. Once more he would be able to live and associate with other people, because of the One Who ‘Himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases’ (8.17). For he was cleansed and healed. But notice the word, ‘cleansed’. He was also clean through and through. The great barrier that had been between him and the rest of mankind was gone, and for the first time for many years he would once more be able to enter the house of God and mingle with other worshippers.
The question may arise as to why Jesus was able to touch the leper and not Himself become unclean. The answer lies within the result of the act itself. The Cleanser could not be rendered clean by the uncleanness, for by His touch the uncleanness was removed. You did not argue about cleanness with the Cleanser. He removed uncleanness. As a result of His touch and His word it no longer existed. That is why in Jesus all things are rendered clean to those who are His.
8.4 ‘And Jesus says to him, “See you tell no man; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.”
But one more thing was required before the man could fulfil his dream and mix with other people. He must be certified as clean by the priests, in accordance with the Law. That was essential. In Jewish society until that had happened he would still be isolated and forbidden to approach men and women. He would still be a social pariah, whether healed or not. And so Jesus bids him to go and show himself to the priest, and then once he has been examined and pronounced clean he must offer the offering commanded by Moses, as a testimony to ‘them’ (see Leviticus 14.2-32 for the full details). ‘Them’ is probably to be seen as signifying ‘the congregation of Israel’, that is, the whole people, as represented by the priests who acted on behalf of the congregation of Israel. None would want to come in contact with such a man until he had been certified as clean. In fact it was forbidden. Thus it had to be certified to all.
Why does Matthew tell us this? One reason was because it was one further indication that Jesus had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it, as He has just been making clear at great length in His sermon (5.17). Jesus was not replacing the teaching of the Scriptures, He was fulfilling it to the full. And this is one good reason why this account is placed immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. It illustrates Jesus’ obedience to the Law of God. On top of this it was also drawing out gratitude from the man to the One Who had healed him, and reminding him that from now on he had a duty to worship God truly.
‘See you tell no man.’ Jesus calls on him to say nothing of his healing. This probably indicated keeping silent before the priest as well. There was no need for anyone to know how he had been healed. All that the priest had to do was the necessary tests. It was in that sense irrelevant how the healing had taken place. Possibly Jesus did not want every leper in the land coming to Him, for it would deeply have affected His ministry. Possibly He was wanting to prevent an even greater accumulation of ‘great crowds’ coming to see wonders. Possibly He did not want to draw the attention of the priesthood in the Temple on Himself. Possibly He did not want to arouse the crowds to fever-pitch so that they sought to make Him a king (compare John 6.15). But it is important to note that in the end it was because Jesus did not want men to believe in Him simply because of the miracles that He did (see also 9.30; 12.16; 17.9; Mark 1.34; 5.43; 7.36; 8.26; John 2.23-25). He wanted them to believe in Him because He brought the truth. It was only to those who already believed that His miracles were cited as a testimony, evidencing Who He was (11.4-5).
‘Moses.’ Surprisingly Moses is mentioned less by Matthew than in any other Gospel (only in five passages - 17.3, 4; 19.7, 8; 22.24; 23.2 - thus seven times, and apart from at the Transfiguration only ever as the source of the Law). Apart from at the Transfiguration when it is made clear that both the law and the prophets point to Him Matthew makes no attempt to compare or contrast Moses with Jesus. (This would be very surprising if he was trying to present Him as another Moses).
The Centurion’s Servant - The Servant Is A Light To The Gentiles (8.5-13).
Jesus’ first miracle had been on one who was skin-diseased, an outcast from society, one who was unclean and rendered all who came in contact with him as unclean. And he was made clean by Jesus’ word of authority and power combined with His touch. The second will be on one living in an unclean household, the servant of a Gentile who was a centurion. Centurions, who were theoretically in charge of one hundred men, although more realistically around sixty, were important and respected figures. There would be about sixty centurions to a Roman legion. They were hardened fighters and formed the backbone of the Roman armies, which held the Empire under their control. And they were therefore in positions of considerable authority. That authority would be unquestioned by their men. It would also be held in awe by others. You did not mess around with a centurion. They could demand obedience in the name of Caesar, and one word from him could have devastating consequences for those involved. There was no better living example of a kind of authority which was in direct contact with the people. He did not hide in palaces. He met the people face too face.
There were, however, no permanent Roman legions in Galilee, but a kind of standing army set up by Herod Antipas made up of local auxiliaries, recruited mainly from the Gentile areas around. They were auxiliary legions. The centurion may have been a member of one of these auxiliary legions, or he might even have been a delegate from the emperor (through one of his generals) sent to assist in the control of the area. But this one believed in the God of Israel (Luke tells us that he had actually from his own pocket built a synagogue for the Jews), and the fact that he was a good and moral man (which had probably been what attracted him to Judaism and its Law) comes out in his concern for his slave. For slaves were seen by most as no more important than cattle or tools. They were ‘chattels’. But this good man was concerned about the suffering of his slave.
One thing especially we should note about this story. In it the centurion passes his verdict on Jesus. He declares Him to have supreme authority over disease as One Who is under God. He is declaring his recognition that the Kingly Rule of Heaven was present in Jesus. The irony of this lies in the fact that at the end of this section the Pharisees, who were supposed to be serving God, will declare Jesus’ authority as coming from the prince of demons, while the Gentile believing centurion recognises it as coming from God. The eyes of a blind Gentile have been opened, and the eyes of those who are supposed to see are revealed as blind.
(This account is paralleled in Luke. Thus it appears in the material common to Matthew and Luke, which is rare for narrative material. It therefore does not fit in with the idea that that source, if it was one source, was a ‘sayings’ source. As that source, often called Q, is doubtful on other grounds its whole existence as a single source is thus thrown into question).
Analysis of 8.5-13.
Note that in ‘a’ comes the circumstances and the request for healing, while in the parallel we learn that he was accordingly healed. In ‘b’ the centurion reveals his faith, and in the parallel Jesus answers according to his faith. In ‘c’ we have the commands to ‘come’ and ‘go’ and ‘do this’ within the centurion’s sphere of authority, and in the parallel many ‘come’, and many are ‘sent away’, and many ‘sit down’ (do this) with Abraham and the patriarchs within the sphere of God’s authority, His Kingly Rule. Finally and centrally in ‘d’ is the stress on the greatness of the centurion’s faith that made even Jesus marvel.
8.5 ‘And when he was entered into Capernaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, “Lord, my servant lies in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.” ’
Jesus now entered Capernaum, where He had ministered from the start (Luke 4.23), a town at the top western end of the Sea of Galilee, on one of the major trade routes through Palestine, and a port for shipping coming across the Sea of Galilee. And there he was approached by an officer, probably of the local auxiliaries, a centurion. This centurion had not, however, come to command, but to plead. He ‘beseeched’ Jesus. He acknowledged in Him a higher authority.
In Luke 7.1-10 we are informed that in fact his approach was through a number of intermediaries. But it is typical of Matthew to personalise the approach of intermediaries in terms of the sender (compare 9.18). It is in fact quite common to speak in such terms. We may say a general did this or that, while all the time we know that it was done by his troops, and he may not even have been involved. We say Wellington defeated Napoleon. But what we mean is that he did it, not personally, but by issuing his orders. (Compare how Nebuchadnezzar had said in his records, ‘Forty six cities of Judah I besieged and took,’ even though he probably approached few, if any, of them). The same principle applies here. But Matthew wants to bring out the distinctiveness and personal nature of the centurion’s faith and therefore emphasises the one who was actually responsible for the orders, rather than the messengers who carried them out and articulated them to Jesus.
The centurion addressed Him as ‘Lord’. There is in this at least the same deference as he would have shown to a superior officer, only for a different reason, and possibly even a sense of his awe in speaking to a prophet of God. He had recognised that this Man had the might of God behind Him. Being a Gentile it might even indicate a recognition of at least semi-divinity, as what he goes on to say suggests. (When this term is used we always have to consider its implications, which can vary from ‘Sir’, through a number of alternatives, to LORD as translating the name of YHWH). But Matthew, in this subsection regularly uses ‘Lord’ (kurios) on the lips of different people in the face of great wonders. Consider the confident hope of the leper which results in his cleansing, the less confident hope of the disciples which results in the stilling of the tempest, and the hope of the two blind men who believe that He can heal them. There was more in these approaches than just a polite ‘sir’. In each case they attributed to Him a certain level of supernatural power, and their address must be read accordingly. It was not a full blown declaration of His divinity, but it did recognise that He was above and beyond ordinary men. They recognised a certain uniqueness about Him that set Him above ordinary men, even important men. Matthew therefore probably intends us also to see in it the unconscious submission of this Gentile to Jesus as the LORD of glory, even though recognising that the Gentile might not yet have realised that full significance (compare another such centurion in 27.54, a pagan, who speaks of Him as ‘the Son of God’). In Luke also Jesus is called ‘Lord’ by the centurion’s representatives.
The centurion (through his representatives) lays out the position without more ado (in Luke more detail are given. As usual Matthew leaves out extraneous material so as to stress the main points). “Lord, my servant (pais) lies in the house sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.” This sums up the whole position neatly. Note the threefold ‘lies in the house’, ‘sick of the palsy’, ‘grievously tormented’. The idea is to emphasise how ill the servant is. He cannot rise to his feet, he has this dreadful disease, and he is suffering greatly. (We do not know the identity of the disease). The compassion of the centurion comes out in this description. His concern is not in the fact that the slave is now useless to him. He is genuinely concerned about the details of his state.
The word ‘pais’ can mean servant or son. In its use in the New Testament it is sometimes ambiguous, but it regularly means ‘servant’ (compare 14.2; Luke 1.54, 69; 12.45; 15.26 and regularly in LXX. Note especially its use in Acts 3.13, 26; 4.30). Luke uses doulos (slave) in Luke 7.2-10 which makes it unambiguous. Thus there are no grounds for suggesting otherwise. Nor are there any real grounds for connecting this healing with that of the nobleman’s son (huios - John 4.46-54) simply because in both Jesus healed at a distance. Other than that fact the details are all very different, and the ability of Jesus to exercise such authority at a distance also comes out both in His giving of that authority to His Apostles when He sends them out (10.1), and in the case of the Canaanite woman (15.28). It was thus a regular feature of His ministry, and not unique to here. What was unique to here was the centurion’s recognition of the significance of it.
Note the great emphasis on the suffering of the servant. In the chiasmus this parallels the sufferings of the damned (verse 12). It is a reminder that the One Who can deliver from the one, can also inflict the other. The point is being made that Jesus has come to heal men, but if they will not be healed then there is no hope for them.
8.7 ‘And he says to him, “I will come and heal him.” ’
The ‘I’ is emphatic and we should probably translate as a question, ‘Shall I come and heal him?’ (New Testament Greek had no way of indicating a positive question. It had to be gathered from the context or the tone of voice). This gives the emphatic ‘I’ its full force. It may thus be intended as a deliberate attempt to discover what was in the centurion’s mind. What does he really expect of a Jewish prophet? Has he really considered what he is asking? We can compare this with His treatment of the Canaanite woman in 15.21-28. There also He was concerned that she recognise that she was dealing with the God of Israel. Or it may simply be a simple statement agreeing that He will indeed go, the emphasised ‘I’ then being a hint that the centurion should recognise what a great privilege is his.
8.8 ‘And the centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.”
The centurion takes the point. He possibly recognises that a Jewish prophet would be hesitant about entering an ‘unclean’ Gentile house where proper rituals of cleanliness have not been observed. He is not, of course, yet aware that Jesus rises above all such things, making clean by His presence. But that does not explain why he applies the idea of unworthiness only to himself. His words indicate that he is even more aware of his own undeserving. ‘I am not worthy’ is a recognition of personal undeserving. Religiously he is ‘poor in spirit’ and ‘mourning’ over sin, and ‘meek’. In other words he is open to blessing (5.3, 5). He may be a God-fearer but he recognises his unworthiness to welcome this awesome Jewish prophet under his roof. His huge faith in, and admiration of, Jesus is thus revealed. For he has no doubt that Jesus has but to speak the word and his servant will be healed, whether He comes under his roof or not. We can compare the same sense of unworthiness in John the Baptiser when Jesus went to him for baptism (3.14). The purity of Jesus was such that He made good men feel unworthy. But along with this sense of unworthiness went great faith. And that was all that the centurion needed.
8.9 “For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers, and I say to this one, ‘Go’, and he goes, and to another, ‘Come’, and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this’, and he does it.”
The centurion gives a simple explanation for his faith in Jesus, and points out that he knows what it is to be ‘under authority’. He also is under authority. He has his authority from Caesar. Thus men dare not disobey him, for if they did they would be disobeying Caesar. In the same way he recognises that Jesus has His authority directly from God. Thus even disease has to obey Him, and that even at a distance. Note how the threefold examples ‘go’, ‘come’, ‘do this’, are paralleled in verses 11-12 in a different order in the ‘coming’, ‘sitting down’ and casting forth’. Matthew is bringing out that Jesus has in fact the same power in eternal matters (compare Revelation 6.1).
8.10 ‘And when Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to those who followed, “Truly I say to you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” ’
Jesus was impressed by the man’s open statement of faith. Others had believed that He could heal at a distance, but always at His instigation (John 4.46-54). But this man was so confident in Him, and so believed in Him that he not only accepted the idea without question, but actually proposed it. He had complete confidence in Jesus’ ability. And it arose from his understanding of the basis of Jesus’ powers. He recognised that Jesus had a unique authority because He was under the greatest Authority of all. So here was a Gentile who had more faith in Jesus, and a deeper understanding of His high authority, than all the Israelites whom He had come across, even his Jewish disciples, with their growing, but still tentative, faith.
Nevertheless having said that we must not overlook the emphasis also on the faith of the woman with the issue of blood (9.22) and the faith of the blind men (9.28-29). Faith is an important part of this subsection, and there were many Jews who had faith. But the centurion was outstanding because he understood the basis on which he could believe. There was nothing waffly about his faith. This remarkable narrative demonstrated quite clearly that when it came to attitude towards God a Gentile could be just as acceptable to God as a Jew, and perhaps even more so. Instinctively we know that after this Jesus must shortly open up His ministry, and the Kingly Rule of Heaven, to Gentiles, although not until the Jews had had their full opportunity. Nevertheless in this case Jesus leaves the seed sown to prosper. He does not, as far as we know, seek to follow it up. But we cannot really doubt that the centurion would come to hear Him preach, as soldiers had also gone to hear John the Baptist (Luke 3.14 - he may have been one of them)
‘Jesus -- marvelled.’ We have here a reminder that while walking on earth as man Jesus had ceased to call on His own omniscience. Thus in certain things He could be taken by surprise. But He was, of course, perfectly attuned to His Father and to the Holy Spirit, the source of all truth, in all things pertaining to God and His purposes.
8.11 “And I say to you, that many will come from the east and the west, and will recline (at table) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingly Rule of heaven,”
The incident brought home to Jesus that in the future many Gentiles would be found in the eternal Kingly Rule of Heaven. We are left to recognise at this stage that it will be as a result of His activity (28.20). While at present His ministry must be aimed at the lost sheep of the house of Israel (those in Israel who were open to His message because they were like sheep without a shepherd - 9.36) there was still to be an opening for Gentiles, and in the future that would become a wide open door. ‘East’ included Arabia, Assyria, Babylon and Persia, ‘West’ included the coastlands and the lands across the Great Sea (the Mediterranean). All these had been included in Old Testament promises. See 12.18, 21; Isaiah 2.2-4; 42.4, 6, 11; 49.6-7, 12; 60.6-7; 19.23-25; 43.14; etc. But the description is deliberately general.
The future life was regularly depicted in terms of Abraham (compare Luke 16.22-30), for all who come there will do so as a result of the promises to Abraham. Here the other patriarchs are also included. Thus in mind here is the coming eternal Kingly Rule, when His present Kingly Rule over the hearts of believers will merge with that in the eternal kingdom. For ‘recline’ (the equivalent of our ‘sitting down at table’) with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’ compare ‘in Abraham’s bosom’ (Luke 16.22), signifying reclining at table next to him. The idea is to present the eternal kingdom in terms of the great future Messianic feast (e.g. Isaiah 25.6-9; 65.13; and regularly in Jewish literature) of which the Lord’s Table is a foretaste, a feast which in this case pictures the everlasting kingdom, when God has finally triumphed on behalf of His people. The idea therefore is of large scale participation in God’s future blessings by the Gentiles. (As with the Kingly Rule of Heaven, the Messianic feast could signify spiritual blessing here as found in Christ, and also the future spiritual blessing which will be ours eternally).
Even the Scribes and Pharisees were content for Gentiles to be converted to Judaism and become proselytes by being circumcised and purified. Thus the idea that Gentiles could enjoy the future blessing of God was not new. But they did not tend to think in large numbers like this, and they did not actually seek to evangelise them. They simply accepted them because the Law had said that they must (Exodus 12.48; Deuteronomy 23.3-8). Nor did Jewish concepts of the Messianic banquet tend to include Gentiles.
However, undoubtedly being powerfully expressed here was the thought that some of those who were ‘sons of Abraham’ (3.9), and who therefore thought of themselves as heirs to God’s Kingly Rule, and expected their part in the coming Kingly Rule, would discover that they, in the end, had no part with Abraham, while those whom they dismissed as not having any connection with Abraham would find themselves sharing the table with Abraham (compare 22.43).
8.12 “But the sons of the Kingly Rule will be cast forth into the outer darkness. There will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.”
This contrast confirms that Gentiles were in mind in the previous verses. For here the ‘sons of the Kingly Rule’, that is those who outwardly appeared to have a right to the enjoyment of that Kingly Rule and indeed laid a claim to it, signifies the Jews. (Compare ‘sons of Belial’ which meant those who connected themselves with Belial, ‘sons of the bridechamber’ which indicated those who connected themselves with the bridegroom). Outer darkness signifies being away from the inner circle of the light of God, having been cast from His presence into the outer darkness. (Compare Psalm 88.6; Isaiah 47.5; 60.2). Darkness was regularly a picture of the Lord’s judgments (Isaiah 47.5; Joel 2.31; Amos 5.18, 20; Nahum 1.8; Zephaniah 1.15). It was from the darkness that Jesus had come to deliver His people (4.16). But now He informs them that while many Gentiles will come to His light (compare Isaiah 42.6; 49.6), many Jews who thought themselves secure will be cast from it. The weeping and gnashing of teeth indicates the shock, horror and anguish that they will suffer as a result. It is a picture of despair, anger, incredulity and hopelessness all rolled into one (compare 13.42, 50; 22.13; 24.51; 25.30; Psalm 112.10). For it will be the opposite of what in their view was supposed to happen (Isaiah 60.2). Darkness was intended for the Gentiles, not for the Jews (Wisdom of Solomon 17.17, 21). But now they learn that being children of Abraham will not be sufficient to guarantee their security, as John had warned them (3.9), because they had turned from their Messiah. A similar idea is found in John 3.18-21.
Note the threefold, ‘cast into outer darkness’, ‘weeping’, ‘gnashing of teeth’ and compare it with ‘lies in the house’, ‘sick of the palsy’, ‘grievously tormented’. The one is delivered by the powerful word of Jesus from misery, the others are sentenced by that same word to misery (John 12.48).
Some see the picture as illustrating their being kept out of the brilliantly lit banqueting hall of the Messianic Banquet, and thrown out into the darkness outside. But that is probably to limit too much its deliberately universal and eschatological scope. It was indicating that those involved were permanently excluded from the light of God. The ‘light to lighten the Gentiles’ resulted only indarkness for unbelieving Jews.
8.13 ‘And Jesus said to the centurion, “Go your way. As you have believed, so be it done to you.” And the servant was healed in that hour.’
Notice the emphasis that Jesus places on the centurion’s believing. Faith triumphed as it always must when it is faith in the trustworthiness of God to His promises, and faith in His mercy. But he still had to go back believing in Jesus and what He had promised. And he was rewarded in accordance with what he was expecting. ‘In that hour’ simply signifies, ‘around that time’.
We may note here that even the centurion had not garnered the full truth. For Jesus did not heal the servant by a word, He did it simply by a thought. His words were all addressed to the centurion. All that was needed for the actual healing was His will in that direction.
The Healing Of Peter’s Mother-in-law Aand A Multiplicity of Healings. The Servant Has Borne All Our Diseases (8.14-17).
This subsection now finishes off with a final example of healing, followed by an emphasis on the fact that Jesus has come to bear men’s suffering on Himself, with the result that men and women can be healed. Once again we see Jesus’ touch of power, followed by His word of power. Here is the One with complete authority. We have already noted the parallels with the leper. But this time there is a greater sense of Jesus’ more personal involvement. For here He is among His own. So He ‘sees’ the fever rather than just hearing of it (there is a different emphasis in Mark. Matthew is not disagreeing with that. But he wants to bring out Jesus’ personal concern). In this case it is He Who takes the initiative. And in return He receives personal service. Overall Matthew wants us to see the relationship being described as much closer because He is among His own (compare 12.49).
Note that in ‘a’ Peter’s mother-in-law is sick with a fever, and in the parallel we are reminded that Jesus bore all such sicknesses. In ‘b’ He therefore touched her hand and the fever left her, and in the parallel He also healed a great many others. And centrally she, and she alone, rose up and served Him. Many experience the greatness of His power, but few are they who really go on to serve Him as they should.
8.14 ‘And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick of a fever.’
This incident occurs in all three synoptic Gospels. It gains in importance to Matthew because she is one of the inner group of believers who welcome Jesus to their homes. But she was not welcoming Him this time. She was tossing and turning on her mattress. Matthew points out that Jesus ‘saw’ her. Thus he sees Jesus as taking personal direct note of her. It is a reminder to us that He knows also about our needs. He ‘sees’ us too. In Mark we learn that they first tell Him about her, just as others may tell Him about our needs in prayer. But Matthew as usual cuts out the frills and goes to the essential point. Here we learn that He had a personal interest in her need, just as, if we are His, He ever sees our need (compare 6.32). The Father always knows (6.32), and Jesus always knows. What then have we to fear?
8.15 ‘And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose, and ministered to him.’
Note how this parallels what Jesus did with the leper. He touched both the leper and the fevered woman and they were both healed, and both would have been seen as ‘unclean’. Jewish Halakah forbade the touching of people with certain kinds of fever. But the One Who makes clean did not concern Himself about that. Once He had touched someone they were clean. We too can recognise that ‘His touch has still its ancient power’. Once we come for His touch we are made clean. He can touch us too at the point of our need. But how many of us then arise and serve Him? (The leper actually went away and disobeyed Him (Mark 1.45), although he may well have followed Him later).
‘And she arose, and ministered to him.’ Such was His healing power that she was immediately able to arise and minister to Jesus’ needs. When Jesus healed someone they did not feel weak afterwards. The healing was total. And by her act she demonstrated her love, gratitude and devotion. (There was one case where Jesus healing was only partial (Mark 8.24), but that was because He had an important message to teach through it about the slow enlightenment of His disciples).
8.16 ‘And when evening was come, they brought to him many possessed with demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.’
Having given three remarkable examples of healing; of a leper, a Gentile and a fevered woman, three examples of uncleanness, Matthew now goes on to emphasise how Jesus also healed many. It was a special time of healing because of the reason for His coming. He was demonstrating the presence of the Coming One and of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Notice first that His power over the spirit world was revealed. He had come to destroy the works of the Devil (1 John 3.8). As a result of His coming the powers of evil were in turmoil and revealing themselves as never before. And His own authority was revealed in that He cast them out with a word. And He also healed all who were sick. For He wanted to make clear that He had come to introduce a new creation (2 Corinthians 5.17; Galatians 6.15).
‘The spirits.’ These were also called ‘evil spirits’, ‘demons’ and ‘devils’. They were powers of evil which often possessed men’s lives when they indulged in idol worship or the occult.
8.17 ‘That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, “Himself took our infirmities, and bore our diseases”.’
It can hardly be doubted that this quotation from Isaiah is intended to cover at least the whole of the final summary of exorcism and healing, although it is probably also intended to cover the whole passage from 8.1, and being in the inclusio from 4.23-9.35, in both of which verses there is specific reference to His healing of both ‘sickness and disease’, it is probably intended to cover the whole inclusio. The point being made is that the One Who had come to save His people from their sins (1.21) was thus also here to deliver them from the sufferings which resulted from that sin, because He was bearing it all for them. And that included being delivered from the power of the Evil One (verse 16). And He was able to do it because He would bear their necessary sufferings on Himself. As the original context makes clear (and see also 20.28) He was here as our representative and substitute to bear in Himself what the world deserved because of sin (Isaiah 53.3-5). Among other things He would take on Himself the groaning of the world (Romans 8.18-25). Thus these acts of healing were a part of His larger work as the suffering Servant Who would lay down His life as a guilt offering on behalf of many, with all its positive results (Isaiah 53.10), the Servant Who was also the coming King (Isaiah 52.13; 42.1, 4). And this offering would result in healing and forgiveness (9.12-13). We must again draw attention to the fact that these incidents take place in the part of Matthew where the quotations from Isaiah specifically predominate, referring to both King and Servant. Jesus is revealed as having come here as the suffering Servant, and as in fulfilment of all the Isaianic promises (3.3; 4.16; 8.17; 12.17; 13.14-15).
The word used for ‘infirmities’ is used only here in Matthew. Luke, however, uses it regularly for diseases. The dual idea, but with a different term for infirmities, is again found in 4.23; 9.35; 10.1. If we consider the probability that Matthew uses ‘infirmities’ (astheneias) here simply because it was in the text from which he took the saying, while himself preferring ‘sicknesses’ (malakian) as in 4.23; 9.35; 10.1, then we might see 8.17 as central to the inclusio from 4.23 to 9.35 (both of which mention the dual ‘sickness and disease’), demonstrating that what lies between is to be connected with 8.17. In that case 10.1, where ‘sicknesses and diseases’ are again mentioned, can then be seen as also carrying the implication forward into the future work of His disciples. They too are in a sense God’s Servant (compare Acts 13.47).
8.18 ‘Now when Jesus saw great crowds about him, he gave commandment to depart to the other side.’
Jesus’ ministry had begun with ‘great crowds’ (4.25) from which He had entered the mountain in order to teach His disciples. But when He had descended from the mountain it was again to be met by ‘great crowds’ (8.1). Now He determines once more to avoid them (as He had in 5.1). He considers that they have seen and heard enough to be going on with, and is probably exhausted. But having already learned that the refuge of a mountain had proved not to be sufficient to totally avoid the crowds, He determined this time that He would cross the sea of Galilee in order to avoid them. It is quite probable that Jesus was physically exhausted. His healings were physically draining as ‘power went out of Him’ (Mark 5.30), and the continual preaching and attention of the crowds would have added to the strain. That is presumably why He would shortly fall into a deep sleep in a boat in circumstances which were far from congenial. There was a limit to what even His body would take. And this period apart from the great crowds would also give some of the inner group of His disciples time to speak with Him, and would lead to further revelations which were meant for them, before He once more took up His ministry in Galilee. For consideration had to be given to all.
‘He gave commandment to depart to the other side.’ This introduces a new subsection, and this indication of His imminent departure is depicted as sparking off moments of decision for two particular men who were possible additions to His growing band. It may well be that neither Jesus nor they knew at this stage how long it would be before they returned to Galilee. Thus this had become a crisis point for all as to whether they would return home, or follow Him.
These two men are probably intended to be seen as two out of a number who would have to make rapid decisions as a result of His departure, for the response to this situation would separate the ‘followers’ from the less committed. There would in fact be quite a number of such followers for other boats went with Him (Mark 4.36), but neither Mark nor Matthew tell us what happened to them, for theirs is a selective history. The concentration is on Jesus and His acts, not on the detail.
Jesus Is Revealed As Lord Over Nature, Lord Over The Spirit World, and Lord Over Sin and Forgiveness (8.18-9.9).
This subsection from 8.18-9.9 can be seen as united around a series of travel descriptions deliberately used in order to unite them together:
The whole subsection is probably brought together by Matthew in order to vividly portray the future for the followers of Christ. What follows will depict the problems and encouragements of discipleship. Having depicted how as the Suffering Servant Jesus has brought deliverance and healing for all who are unclean (8.1-17), He now goes on to depict the future for those who will follow Him.
And all this also reveals to the disciples their own future mission, that facing storms and spiritual forces of darkness, they too are to take out to men in His Name the forgiveness of sins (9.6; compare Luke 24.47; John 20.23).
However, in the story of the paralytic another idea emerges, and that is the idea that while the men of faith (the paralytic and his bearers) experience forgiveness and healing, those deceived by Satan will arise in opposition to Jesus. The former will be thus be delivered, as the disciples had been, while the latter will finally perish along with the demons. We have here the first indication in Matthew of the opposition of the religious authorities of Judaism. This opposition must have come as something of a shock to the disciples. They had always been taught how godly these men were. And now they were learning differently, something which will come out further in 9.10-17. And meanwhile all this is finally sealed by the calling of Matthew (9.9) so that he might have his part in it.
There are interesting connections between the initial account of the approach of the would be disciples, and the events that immediately followed. It is because the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head, that when He snatches sleep it will be in the stern of a boat at sea. The dead are to be left to bury their dead, while the living who follow Him are to be delivered from death at sea, so as to be brought to recognise that they have eternal life.
Note that central to all these incidents is their arrival in Decapolis. It may be that we are to see from this sequence that Jesus had a specific aim in going to the other side, quite apart from simply to avoid the crowds, namely to pin down a particularly dreadful manifestation of the power of the Devil, and to establish a preparatory witness in the area with the future in mind. (We can compare how He had previously established a preparatory ministry among the Samaritans - John 4.3-45). It is quite possible that news about these two demon-possessed people who were in such a dreadful condition had been brought to Jesus by Jews from Decapolis who had come to hear Him. The incident will also indicate that the Gentiles are not yet ready to receive Him. They cannot yet cope with His extraordinary powers. For originally it may well be that Jesus’ aim had been to stay there much longer, ministering among the many Jews who were there.
A more in depth analysis of this subsection is as follows:
Note that in ‘a’ two disciples are challenged to follow Jesus, and in the parallel one disciple is called and does follow Him. In ‘b’ Jesus acts in such demonstrative power that His disciples marvel and ask what manner of MAN He is, and in the parallel He acts in such demonstrative power that the crowds give glory to God because He has given such power to MEN. Centrally in ‘c’ we find the great expulsion of the demoniacs, and Jesus’ own expulsion from Gentile territory.
Two Disciples Are Faced Up With The Cost Of Following Jesus (8.18-22).
Jesus’ command to His disciples to prepare to go to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (verse 18) sparks off the need for some of His followers to face up to the question of discipleship. The question now is, are they going to follow Him all the way? We are given two as an example. The first is a Scribe, an interpreter of the Law (although not necessarily a Pharisee), and the second is one on whom Jesus has His eye, but who is wavering. Luke tells us of the same incidents but without putting them in a particular context.
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus is leaving the country, and in the parallel He tells the disciple to leave the country with Him, and leave the dead to bury their own dead. In ‘b’ the Scribe declares that he will follow Jesus wherever He goes (even into Gentile territory) and in the parallel Jesus calls another to follow Him. In ‘c’ the foxes have holes and the birds of the air nests, each has its home, and in the parallel the disciple wants to cling on to his home. Centrally in ‘d’ is the fact that the Son of Man has come in humility and suffering.
8.19 ‘And there came a scribe, and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.’
Matthew in his Jewishness takes particular note of the fact that this would-be close disciple was a Scribe. (For the fact that he was already seen as a disciple, compare ‘another’ in verse 21). That he was a Scribe was not important to Luke. He wanted his Gentile readers to apply the story to themselves. But Matthew was very much aware of the Scribe’s status in the eyes of the Jews, so he draws attention to what he was (although he could have been a Scribe of the Pharisees, a Scribe of the Sadducees, or a more general ‘unattached’ Scribe. Matthew is stressing status rather than a particular viewpoint).
He then points out that in spite of the fact that Jesus has given the command to go over to Gentile territory, the Scribe says that he will follow Him wherever He goes. It was a promise of full commitment in the face of a choice which was probably not to the Scribe’s liking, that of going into Gentile territory, but he was willing to make it. Matthew wanted his Jewish readers to realise that not all Scribes rejected Jesus.
‘Teacher.’ This was an address used a number of times to Jesus by both Scribes and Pharisees (9.11; 12.38; 22.15-16, 35, compare the Sadducees in 22.23-24). The rich young man also addresses Him as ‘Teacher’ (19.16). It denoted respect, sometimes genuine and sometimes feigned, and is regularly found on the lips of the critical. But there is absolutely no reason to think that it is feigned here. It was a natural address for a Scribe, and coming from a Scribe could be seen as ultra respectful. He is acknowledging that Jesus is an outstanding teacher, and worthy of being followed, even by a trained Scribe. (It should be noted that when in Matthew Jesus wants to identify Himself to others with Whom He was on friendly enough terms to use their possessions, that He once uses the title ‘the Lord’ (21.3), and once ‘the Teacher’ (26.18). This confirms that ‘Teacher’ can be used in Matthew by believers).
8.20 ‘And Jesus says to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nesting places, but the Son of man has not where to lay his head.” ’
Jesus’ reply is to point out that while even the lowest of God’s creatures have their own homes and places of security, He Himself has no home, and nowhere to lay His head. To follow Him will involve putting aside all luxury, and even losing an average level of prosperity and security. It will involve facing roughness and hardship. It will be to sacrifice prestige. While such a life might not have caused a fisherman, who was used to hardship, to quail, it might well have made a scholar think twice. If the Scribe was hesitant about entering Gentile territory this would also confirm to him that to follow Jesus meant being willing to go anywhere, for he was being informed that those who followed Jesus had nowhere to call home, and therefore had no ties.
There is probably also behind the idea a recognition that to follow Him will soon result in even greater lack of security, and rejection from many places. He had Himself already experienced rejection by His own home town of Nazareth (Luke 4.29-30), which may well have been why His family later moved to Capernaum (4.13). And He will later make clear that in serving Him people may lose both family and friends (10.21-22, 35-36). Thus the warning of coming hardship was necessary.
‘Nesting places.’ The word signifies a dwellingplace. Jesus might well have had in mind the holes in the mountains where the birds made their nests (Jeremiah 48.28; Song of Solomon 2.14), which would parallel the holes of the foxes, the idea including the fact that Jesus and His disciples had no hole to crawl into, and no place of security to hide in. They were therefore totally vulnerable.
‘The Son of Man.’ This is the first instance of the use of this term in Matthew. Shortly Jesus will point out that as the Son of Man He has the authority on earth to forgive sins (9.6). There He clearly sees the term as giving Him special status. It is a term which in the Gospels is only found on the lips of Jesus, apart from two examples where His use of the term is being cited by others. Thus it was not a term taken up by the early church, the only exception being Acts 7.56 where it was used by Stephen of the glorious and enthroned Son of Man whom he saw during his martyrdom, and this exception is strong evidence that it was a term that otherwise only Jesus applied to Himself. The Son of Man Whom Stephen saw was the enthroned and glorified Christ (in line with Daniel 7.14).
In the Old Testament the term is used in order to indicate man in his lordship over creation (Psalm 8.4), and man in his uniqueness as a law keeping being over against the wild beasts which represented ‘lawless’ man (Daniel 7.13). Both result in the exaltation of the son of man over creation (Psalm 8.5; Daniel 7.14, compare Psalm 80.17). It is used of Ezekiel as the chosen of YHWH, while emphasising his human weakness (e.g. Ezekiel 2.1; and often, compare Psalm 144.3; 146.3; Isaiah 51.12). None of these references, however, in LXX (where they are without the definitie article) exactly parallel Jesus’ use as depicted in the Gospels where it is with the definite article. This last fact should warn us against too glibly stating that the Aramaic was that lay behind it (in Revelation also it is used without the article).
Certainly one central aspect of its use by Jesus was as the son of man who came out from among the suffering of his people to the throne of God to receive glory and kingship (26.64; Daniel 7.14), having come out of suffering (Daniel 7. 25, 27). In this passage the son of man represents both the King and God’s righteous people, who because they are righteous thus behave like human beings ought to behave in obeying God’s Instruction, rather than behaving like wild beasts (who also represent both kings and nations).
The title thus includes both the thought of Jesus’ suffering and humiliation as man, and His final exaltation and enthronement as God’s chosen King. It will later be used of Jesus as the final great Judge of all (24.30-31).
(The only way in which all these aspects of the Son of Man can be avoided is either by altering the texts in a way which satisfies few, or by claiming that some of them were invented by the early church. But I have never yet come across a satisfactory explanation as to why, if the early church played with the text in this way and thought it useful to introduce such sayings, they showed the term as unused apart from on the lips of Jesus, and did not use it themselves. If it was so useful we would have expected other references to abound. The truth is that the early church did not appreciate the term Son of Man and preferred rather to think of Jesus as the Christ. But that is fatal to any arguments that suggest that they introduced it into the text).
8.21 ‘And another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.” ’
This disciple recognises that to become a truly dedicated disciple will involve leaving his home behind. He acknowledges that while even God’s creatures have their own homes, the disciples of Jesus are different. And he is ready for that, but not just yet. He is not quite ready now. He wants first to achieve his independence. It is an open question whether the disciple means that he wants to go back for a short while because his father is dying, or because he has just received news that his father is already dead, or whether he is referring to his filial duty to remain at home until his father dies, whenever that may be. But the principle is the same. He is seeking to avoid going with Jesus immediately.
We can compare here the case of Elisha who also went home to say farewell before following Elijah. But at that point Elisha cut himself off completely from his past life (1 Kings 19.19-21), and then did follow Elijah. But in that case Elijah was not moving on out of range. And there is certainly no indication that his father was dying. Here then it is probable that the man was in fact wanting to delay full discipleship until he was freed from family ties and filial duty.
That being so it might well be that Jesus here detects that there is behind the disciple’s statement an evident reluctance to follow all the way (as with the rich young man later - 19.22), and that He is challenging him precisely on that point. He is telling him to sort out his priorities. Thus what seems at first a harsh reply then becomes perfectly understandable, and in line with other references to the relationship of disciples of Jesus to relatives (10.37; 19.29; Luke 14.26). On the other hand it may be that Jesus, not being sure when He would return to Galilee, is stressing that at such moments as this crucial decisions must be made which must not be affected by anything, even the death of a father (just as the High Priest’s ministry must not be affected by the death of his father - Leviticus 21.11). The final lesson is undoubted. Nothing must be allowed to interfere with the decision to follow Jesus.
8.22 ‘But Jesus says to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
Jesus’ reply is that the man must be willing to immediately turn his back on his family life and follow Jesus. The dead can be left to look after their own dead. Here ‘the dead’ is unquestionably figurative in at least one of its uses, for the dead could not literally bury the dead. It therefore refers at least partly, to the dead in soul. What Jesus therefore probably means is that in following Him the man will find life, and he must therefore leave those who are not seeking that life to look after each other. He must put obtaining eternal life before all else, for being a disciple of Jesus means becoming part of another sphere where human death loses its significance. In Jesus, life has transcended death.
There is something very solemn about Jesus describing those who did not seek Him as ‘dead’. Jesus was by this bringing out the stark difference between those who had found life by believing in Him (19.29) and those who chose to remain in ‘death’ (John 3.16; 5.24). In the words of Paul they were ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2.1). They were thus spiritually dead and without eternal life. But His point is that those who are His must leave ‘the dead’ behind to carry on their own affairs, and must themselves engage in the ministry of ‘life’ to all who will receive it. It was this ministry that these disciples would engage in by following Jesus, and nothing must deter them from it, not even the death of someone close to them.
The responsibility for burying a father fell on the eldest son, and it could be quite a performance. Even a priest was allowed to forsake his duties in order that he might fulfil this obligation. But it should be noted that a Nazirite who was under an oath of dedication to God was also not allowed to bury his father (Numbers 6.7), nor was a High Priest (Leviticus 21.11). Thus it may be that Jesus is bringing out the extraordinary level of dedication required of His disciples, which was to be seen as on a level with that of a lifelong Nazirite or a High Priest. It could hardly have been less.
We are not told whether or not these two did follow Jesus, that was not Matthew’s purpose. His purpose was to bring out the cost and demands of discipleship, and the fact that Jesus Himself fulfilled them. But there are really no grounds for saying that they did not. Normally when He said ‘Follow Me’ specifically, men did follow Him (4.18-22; 9.9; John 1.43). The rich young man is a stated exception (19.21-22). On the other hand it may be that there is a contrast with the fact that, while the respectable Scribe was hesitant, in 9.9 the unrespectable Matthew was not. (This would be especially significant if Matthew then became the ‘scribe’ of the band of Apostles as some have suggested).
Jesus Stills The Storm (8.23-27).
The issue of would be followers having been settled Jesus now prepares to go to Decapolis by boat across the Sea of Galilee. Decapolis was a semi-independent confederation of ten Gentile towns which ran their own affairs, loosely watched over by the governor of Syria. But their territory contained many Jews. His disciples probably thought that He was intending to preach to these Jews, although anyone would be welcome to listen. It is very possible that Jesus did have in view the precise problems that He would have to face when He arrived in Decapolis, a combination of evil that was beyond the ordinary which would be found in two people who were demoniacs, one of whom at least was a demoniac of an extraordinary kind. This may well suggest that Matthew saw the storm (or cataclysm) that immediately preceded the visit as Satan’s attempt to prevent Jesus arriving in Decapolis. For a parallel example of Satan being permitted to cause a destructive tempest see Job 1.12, 19. But what Jesus probably did not anticipate was the final reaction of the people to His success.
First, however, we are called on to consider His journey across the sea, which was to prove eventful because of the violent storm, and even possibly an earthquake. It may well be that Matthew saw in this incident a picture of the disciples following Jesus, the One Who had no place in which to lay His head, and as a result launching forth into the deep. He may have seen it as in direct contrast to the wavering disciples illustrated in the previous verses. Jesus’ own disciples followed (8.23) where the others had not. And through their choice they found life and not death, although for a while it would not seem like it. And through it they would learn that His Father would always protect them, and that they must therefore have confidence in Him under all circumstances
Note that in ‘a’ the disciples follow Jesus into the boat at His command, unaware of what lies before them, and in the parallel they finish up marvelling, and questioning as to Who or what Jesus really is. In ‘b’ the tempest arises and the boat is covered by huge waves, and in the parallel the winds and the waves are calmed. Centrally in ‘c’ is the call to ‘the Lord’ to save them from perishing.
8.23 ‘And when he was entered into a boat, his disciples followed him.’
As had previously been pointed out to the would be disciples, those who followed Him must be ready to put all other considerations to one side. And this is now exemplified. Jesus enters the boat and the disciples follow Him (while others accompany them in other boats). He is master of the situation and in total control (in spite of the fact that those who are with Him include experts when it came to boating on the Sea of Galilee). For all recognise His supreme authority. Shortly they would be recognising it even more.
An example of the kind of boat used here has been found at the bottom of the Sea of Galilee. It was about twenty six feet (eight metres) in length and probably held about fourteen people, having oars and a mast, and a small platform at the rear which covered a ballast bag, which was probably where Jesus would have laid His head to sleep, because He had nothing else (8.20).
8.24 ‘And behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, in so much that the boat was covered with the waves, but he was asleep.’
Once in the boat the experts took over and Jesus went to the rear of the boat where He could lie down. And there, probably totally exhausted, He fell asleep, even though the trip would not last long. The journey was in His Father’s hands and so He had no fear.
But as will often happen for those who follow Jesus a huge storm arose, at least partly caused by the winds that regularly funnelled down through the surrounding mountain ranges. These winds were due to the very hot atmosphere around the Sea, which was over six hundred feet (two hundred metres) below sea level. This atmosphere caused a vacuum that sucked in the winds. For the Sea was fed from the source of the River Jordan, a River which flowed through the deep Jordan Rift valley and ended in the self-contained Dead Sea with no outlet to any other Sea. That the Dead Sea did not overflow its banks was due to the rapid evaporation of the water due to the powerful heat, which was what also left the Dead Sea highly saline. But that did not affect the Sea of Galilee which was a fresh water sea, full of fish.
These sudden storms could be very fierce, and very deadly. But they were commonplace on the Sea of Galilee, small though it was. All aboard had memories of friends who had perished in such storms. But this one is described as a cataclysm (earthquake). And as the winds tore their sail to shreds, and the huge waves began to pour over and fill the boat, even these hardened fishermen began to panic. It may even be that the storm was literally accompanied by an earthquake, for here that is the literal meaning of the word translated ‘tempest’ (24.7; 27.54; 28.2). It would help to explain the particular severity of the waves. Thus there was, in Matthew’s words, the idea of a great cataclysm. Perhaps, like Peter later, he had in mind another boat which in Genesis 7.11 had also faced such storms and tempests in bringing God’s chosen ones through to deliverance, for Peter will later use that as a picture of salvation (1 Peter 3.20) and there too they had entered the boat at God’s command, and there too there is a connection with a testimony made to evil spirits which follows after (1 Peter 3.19). Compare the contrasting lesson in 24.37-39. Certainly there is here a beautiful picture of what it means to be in Christ (18.5; 25.40), and to have Him with us whatever life may bring (28.20).
It was the fiercest storm that any there could remember, and they had experienced many. It seemed to them that hope had gone. Its battering was tearing their boat to pieces and totally swamping it. And yet, as the water poured in over the sides, their Master lay in the stern of the boat, fast asleep and seemingly unaware of what was happening. He was doing nothing to help them save the boat, and themselves.
‘Covered with waves.’ The vivid testimony of an eyewitness. It was as though they were being buried alive.
8.25 ‘And they came to him, and awoke him, saying, “Save, Lord, we perish”.’
They would have fought on as long as they could (pride was at stake), but in the end, with hope gone (literally ‘we have perished’), they fought their way through the water that was filling the boat, clinging on for dear life as the howling winds swept continually around them, and made their way to where Jesus was lying unconscious in the stern of the boat. Once there they no doubt shook Him vigorously, and then they cried, ‘Lord, save us. We are perishing.’ (Compare the cry of the leper in 8.2). They were experienced enough to know that the boat could not last much longer. It was their last despairing and rather hopeless cry. They were doomed. So in their terror they had turned to their last hope, although it must be considered probable that they were not even sure that He could do anything, for the storm was relentless and even possibly getting worse.
How easily we do not stop to think when reading these well known narratives. We forget that this is conveying the idea of what happened. But there were a number of terrified men in that boat and as one they had fought their way to Jesus. And now they surrounded Him. And there would have been a number of desperate voices, not just one, and all panicking. And they would all be yelling different words. This is just the gist of it. ‘Save us, Lord, we’re going down.’ ‘Don’t you care that we are perishing?’ ‘Master, master, we’re lost.’ ‘Lord, do something!’
8.26 ‘And he says to them, “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?” Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.”
Jesus awoke, unmoved by the situation, and first turned to them and rebuked them for their fears. He pointed out to them that their problem lay in that fact that they did not have sufficient faith. For if they had really recognised Him for What He was they would have recognised that no boat that carried Him would be allowed to sink. He was safe in His Father’s hands. And the inference is that they should also have realised that they were safe with Him, for they were His chosen followers. This would undoubtedly later give them assurance in the future that they were in God’s hands (even when one of them was martyred - Acts 12.2).
Then having initially rebuked the disciples, He rebuked the winds and the sea (compare Psalm 104.7; 106.9; Nahum 1.4). Only pedantic minds will argue here that this means that He saw the storm as a living thing. Rather it is simply vivid language which brings out the force of what happened, as the quotations demonstrate (compare Psalm 18.15 where His rebuke is compared with the blast of the breath of His nostrils) . It is simply saying somewhat poetically that by the power of His word the storm was stilled. And immediately there was a great calm, indeed such a sudden calm after a storm that it was beyond the experience of even these hardened fishermen. In that moment they knew that they had seen the Master of wind and wave at work. And they were filled with awe.
For ‘O you of little faith’ compare 6.30; 14.31; 16.8. It seems that He then re-emphasised the lesson about faith (Luke 8.25), which is what we would expect once the immediate ‘danger’ was over. For it was an important lesson for them to learn. There is encouragement for us in this. It tells us that they had enough faith to come to Jesus when things were at the worst, and in the end that was all that was required, even though it was so small.
Mark’s alternative, ‘’Do you still have no faith?’ is actually asking the same question. ‘Why is your faith so small?’ He knew that they had a little faith. He was simply bemoaning the lack of quality in their faith. They had no faith of the right kind (compare 17.19-20).
One important thing about this expression was that it brought out that Jesus was not using His miraculous powers to protect Himself. He was willing to rely on His Father. His concern in stilling the storm was rather for the desperate men who had appealed to Him.
8.27 ‘And the men marvelled, saying, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” ’
Note that they did not begin exchanging reminiscences of how past storms had ceased suddenly, for they all knew that this had been different. They knew the lake and its idiosyncrasies, but never before had they seen a storm like this or an instant cessation like this. And all they could do was look at each other and marvel. Before this moment they had seen Jesus as One sent from God Whose power seemed great. But they had never expected it to be as immense as this. Other men had performed various kinds of healings, but what manner of man was this that that even the winds and waves obeyed Him, and were immediately stilled at His words? The answer, of course, was that He was the Creator, Whose bidding nature obeyed. They were learning their next lesson.
What they would finally recognise, and what Matthew wanted his readers to recognise, was that here was One Who on His own authority had commanded wind and wave, and that He did it because He was the One Who was ‘girded with might, Who stills the roaring of the seas, the roaring of the waves’ (Psalm 65.6-7), Who ‘rules the raging of the sea, and when its waves rise, He stills them’ (Psalm 89.9). And Biblically there was only One Who could do that, and that was God. We should note also that in Psalm 65. He also stills ‘the tumult of the peoples’. The Kingly Rule of God was at work in both.
It is possible that the description ‘the men’ included others who had learned of the incident from the breathless disciples after they had landed, even including some who had survived in the other boats mentioned by Mark. But it may simply be a vivid contrast of the disciples with the One Who was clearly not just a man.
We should note that in a sense their whole experience had been recorded long before in the vivid description of men in a storm in Psalm 107.23-30, except that here it had been heightened;
The message behind the Psalm, which mirrors their experience, was that it was God who so controlled the waves, and quietens the storm. The question would be, therefore, how long it would be before they recognised the implications for their understanding of Him of what had happened? Certainly they would soon learn from the demons something more of His nature, when they declared, ‘You are the Son of God’ (8.29).
The Two Demoniacs of Decapolis (8.28-34).
Having experienced their amazing deliverance the disciples were no doubt pleased to reach a safe haven. Little did they realise that they were going to see even greater things than this. They had learned the lesson that as Jesus’ disciples they did not need to fear the storms and the seas, because He would watch over them, but now they would be faced with an even greater foe, and would see Jesus’ power exercised over him and his minions. It would reveal to them that both violent nature and the awesome powers of the supernatural were under Jesus’ control. And they would also learn that the very sea from which He had rescued them was to be the destiny of these evil spirits. There was no deliverance for the evil spirits from the sea. There is a delightful irony in the thought that Satan had sought to destroy Jesus in the sea, only to find his own minions destroyed there instead. But once again Matthew abbreviates the account in Mark. As so often he streamlines it and reduces it to the points that he wants to get over.
Yet as against Mark he introduces us to two demoniacs. This suggests that he is remembering what he saw, not just sticking with hearsay. In many of his abbreviations of Mark he adds these extra small points from his memory. And in all cases they make added sense. This is especially true when he introduces twos. (There would have been a number of demoniacs scattered among the tombs, with men and women having relationships. A mother ass would regularly follow her young unbroken colt. There would always be numbers of blind men begging by the wayside. And so on). Matthew vividly remembers those two people and their fierceness. It is precisely because he remembers the two people that, unlike Mark, he gives us little detail of the conversations, for he wants to include both. Thus we do not even learn here of the multitude of demons. We are left to gather it from what Matthew does say.
Some try to suggest that Matthew enhances stories by doubling up. But a little thought will bring out that there would almost certainly be at least two such people. For there were many demon possessed men and women in those days, and many of them would make for the tombs, where they would be left alone and could find shelter in the rocky caves without interference. And because even people like that are social creatures, they would form their own companionships, even possibly here being a man and a woman. Mark concentrates on the one of greatest interest, and the fiercest, possibly the male. Matthew remembers also the wild woman, possibly with her hair hanging raggedly down her back, and gives us the full true background which he so vividly remembered. (Of course it may have been a male companion).
Such poor, naked (Luke 8.27, compare Mark 5.15) men and women were not only there in Jesus’ day. Thompson in his travels in the 19th century describes similar experiences. ‘There are some very similar cases at the present day -- furious and dangerous maniacs who wander about the mountains and sleep in caves and tombs. In their worst paroxysms they are quite unmanageable, and prodigiously strong. -- And it is one of the common traits of this madness that the victims refuse to wear clothes. I have often seen them absolutely naked in the crowded streets of Beirut and Sidon. There are also cases in which they run wildly about the country, and frighten the whole neighbourhood.’ Indeed the desire to strip naked is a symptom of certain types of clinical depression today, with the result that all thoughts of decency are gone and even what are normally respectable men and women parade themselves in the nude in the most unseemly places without even giving it a thought.
Note than in ‘a’ He arrives in the country of the Gadarenes, and in the parallel He is asked to depart from the country of the Gadarenes. In ‘b’ we have mention of the two who were possessed with demons, and in the parallel the witnesses tell of what has happened to the two who were possessed with demons. In ‘c’ we are told of the plea of the demons to Jesus, and in the parallel of His response. Centrally in ‘d’ they ask to be sent into the herd of swine.
8.28 ‘And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him two possessed with demons, coming forth out of the tombs, extremely fierce, so that no man could pass by that way.’
When they landed on the shore of the country of the Gadarenes they were met by two wild and fierce demoniacs who ran to meet them out of the tombs, which were in caves in the rocks. Matthew tells us that they were possessed with demons. It would seem that Matthew wants us to know that Jesus deliberately went that way, for he tells us that men did not usually pass that way because these demoniacs were so fierce and uncontrolled. Their very behaviour demonstrated the amount of evil forces within them. This dreadful fierceness caused by possession has to be experienced to be believed. It regularly causes self-harm, and a lust for blood. I personally knew a woman in such a state, who had to be held down all through the night, desperate to see the sight of blood, until at four in the morning, after prayer in the name of Jesus, she suddenly subsided and the blood lust left her. And it genuinely was followed by a remarkable and very noticeable calm. The storm at sea was as nothing compared with these two raging demoniacs.
‘The country of the Gadarenes.’ Gadara was an inland town whose territories reached down to the shore of the sea. The other synoptics in the better manuscripts read Gerasa, which probably refers, not to the city of Gerasa, but the small town of Kersa on the shoreline. Near that town is a fairly steep slope within forty metres of the shore, and the cave tombs can still be seen there.
8.29 ‘And behold, they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with you, you Son of God? Are you come here to torment us before the time?” ’
And on seeing Jesus they had no alternative but to react with horror. Men might not know that He was One who was close to God, but they were conscious of it immediately. They recognised the power of His Kingly Rule and His very holiness tormented them because of the demons within them. Notice how they and the demons are seen as one and yet many. And they called out to Him as the ‘Son of God’. Yet even they probably did not realise quite how right they were. For in Mark’s account they tried to outface Jesus, something that they would not have done had they been aware of the full truth. (Calling themselves ‘a legion’ was probably with the hope of frightening Jesus off, as they had no doubt frightened off exorcisers before Him). Matthew gives us the Jewish title ‘Son of God’, Mark the title as it would be used among Gentiles, ‘Son of the Most High God’ (compare Genesis 24.19, 20, 22; Daniel 3.26).
‘And behold.’ The phrase brings out the unexpectedness of what follows. It was not the normal way in which they approached people.
‘What have you and we in common, you Son of God?’ Suddenly recognising what they were unexpectedly up against, they tried to go into retreat and withdraw. This was not what they had wanted at all. They recognised a heavenly quality about the One Whom they were addressing, which they did not like. They now recognised that here was no ordinary man that they could frighten off at will. Here was One from Heaven, something that they had not expected that they would have to encounter for a long time to come.
Their purpose in questioning Jesus may also have been in order to try to involve Him with themselves. By such questions their hope may have been that their adversary would become involved with them, thus lessening His ability to act against them. Those who have had experience of dealing in such matters in a sensible way know that it is dangerous to be drawn in by the questions of evil spirits spoken through the mouths of their victims, often in awesome voices, or to be drawn into a two way relationship with them. Rather the questioning must be kept under the control of the exorciser, so that he can demonstrate God’s authority over them (compare Jude 1.9). It was with the same aim of avoiding direct involvement that Jesus never touched a demon possessed person, but dealt with them by a word of command. It is a reminder to us not to get involved in the occult or in spiritism in any way. By doing so we too could become possessed.
Their questioning was illuminating. It revealed that, like men, they recognised that they had a limited time span before the time came for their judgment. ‘Are you come here to torment us before the time?’ This revealed that they were aware of what fate lay in store for them, the awful and tormenting judgment of God, but that they were not anticipating it at that time (compare 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6; and Jewish apocalyptic literature). They knew that that final judgment awaited the future and they had thought that they had at least ‘a little time’ before that. It also revealed that this encounter had shaken them. Why had this Heavenly One come to earth (‘here’) out of His normal sphere? Being confident that they still had quite some time before God stepped in to judge them, it was outside their reckoning to have to suddenly face up to the Son of God. It was not what they had been given to expect at all.
So while Matthew does not give us the same details as are found in Mark, he does tell us enough to recognise something of what Jesus was dealing with. On the whole men think that spiritually speaking they are alone on this planet, just as Adam and Eve had thought that they were alone in the Garden. But Scripture reveals that often unknown to us events are taking place which are outside our knowledge. Forces are at work of which we know little, and it is only occasionally that we are made cognisant of them (Genesis 3; 6.1-4; Job 1-2; 2 Kings 6.17; Daniel 3.25; 10.1-21; Zechariah 3; 1 Corinthians 11.10; Ephesians 6.10-18; and especially in Revelation). Evil spirits cannot directly interfere with us unless we open ourselves to them through indulging in the occult or the worship of idols. And in Jesus Christ, and especially under the protection of His death on our behalf, we can find full protection against them. But the arrival of Jesus on earth had thrown them into confusion, for He interfered in their world as none other did. They recognised His authority as God’s beloved Son (1.17). This was something new to them and they did not know how to deal with it. They did not know what God was now planning to do. Suddenly they knew that they could remain undetected no longer.
Indeed Satan later thought that if he could only get men to crucify Jesus it might solve the problem (Luke 22.3; John 13.2). He was unaware that he was unsuspectingly carrying forward God’s plan to his own destruction. For it was at the cross that he would suffer the crucial defeat that would guarantee his final end (Colossians 2.15). From then on things have gone backward for him and he is now on the retreat although still powerful, especially in deceiving mankind. But he will fight on to the end. And it is only through God’s truth, and God’s word, and through prayer that we can overcome him (Ephesians 6.10-18). Meanwhile the world unconsciously sleeps in his arms (1 John 5.19), and by him many so-called ‘Christians’ are led off into spurious ideas and activities (2 Corinthians 2.11;11.3, 14; 1 Timothy 4.1; etc).
8.30 ‘Now there was afar off from them a herd of many swine feeding.’
Had this been Jewish territory there would have been no herd of pigs, for to Jews pigs were ritually unclean. But this was Gentile territory, and here the keeping of herds of pigs was commonplace. That there were many pigs is important, for it brings out that there were many demons.
‘There was afar off’. We have here clear evidence of an eyewitness who remembered the herd in the distance. This description is against the idea that the herd were disturbed in any way by the behaviour of the demoniacs.
8.31 ‘And the demons besought him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of swine.” ’.
The demons, recognising His authority and His mastery, pleaded to be allowed to go into those distant pigs. They did not want to be totally disembodied for that would have meant that if they could not soon find a body to possess they would have to go to meet their final fate. Jesus also knew how important it would be for the two men to be sure that the demons had left them, so He gave permission. To Him these two poor possessed people and their sanity were worth more than a herd of pigs.
8.32 ‘And he said to them, “Go.” And they came out, and went into the swine, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep into the sea, and perished in the waters.”
With a word of power Jesus told them to do what they had asked and go, and enter the swine, and, unable to resist, they left the two persons involved and entered the pigs, with the result that the whole herd ran down a slope into the sea. Jesus may well not have expected this outcome. He would be aware of the evil spirits’ desire for self-preservation. Alternately He may have wanted His disciples to recognise that what they had been saved from (the raging sea), was the destiny of those demons instead. It was their rightful place. For the disciples there had been deliverance and life, for the demons only destruction. In Heaven and earth there will be no more sea (Revelation 21.21). This is because the sea in its ferocity was seen as an enemy of man, and there all enemies will have ceased. Perhaps, indeed, these demons were so desperate to get away from Jesus that they thought that they could hide from Jesus at the bottom of the sea (Amos 9.3).
As we consider these pigs we are thus reminded that ‘dumb animals’ are far more sensitive to evil and to strange forces than we often are (compare Balaam’s ass). Dogs will often cower and whine in houses where there are known to be strange phenomena. This sudden inrush of evil clearly terrified the pigs who were fully aware of it, and they ran in panic down the slope, perishing in the waters of the sea. By this event the one time demoniacs would see for themselves that they really had been freed from the demons, while the demons themselves went to their destiny. I have heard many people react against this and ask how Jesus could do such a thing. And then without giving the matter a moment’s thought they would go away and buy their bacon and pork simply for their own enjoyment. What hypocrites we are. It is fine to destroy a herd of pigs for our own enjoyment, but not in order to help two, poor, demented people. Next time you eat bacon, think of this herd of pigs.
‘Go.’ By this Jesus’ supreme authority over demons was revealed. While He was there they could do nothing without His approval. They had to submit to the Kingly Rule of God even though they could not come to enjoy it.
8.33 ‘And those who fed them fled, and went away into the city, and told everything, and what had happened to those who were possessed with demons.’
Naturally those who guarded the pigs were terrified and extremely upset. They fled to the nearby city and described what had happened in full detail, and especially what had happened to the two demon possessed people who were now healed. They did not want to have to bear the blame for what had happened.
8.34 ‘And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they pleaded with him that he would depart from their borders.’
And the consequence was that ‘all the city’ (both Jews and Gentiles) consulted together through their elders and then came to Jesus in a large deputation on behalf of the whole city, and begged Him to leave their borders. They knew what a Jewish prophet would think about pigs, and they did not want any further attacks on their herds. It may also be that they were afraid to have such a powerful Jewish prophet among them. Who could know what might happen next? Every Jew would read out of this that they preferred their uncleanness to the purity of God.
The Healing of the Paralytic (9.1-8).
We come now to the third of these revelations of Jesus’ authority. He has revealed His authority over some of the most powerful forces of this world. He has revealed His authority over the violence of nature, He has revealed His authority over the powers of the supernatural world, and now He will reveal His authority over man’s greatest enemy, sin. He is thereby revealed as the complete Saviour, and especially the Saviour from sin (1.21). And here we learn that all that is necessary for the redemption of His own from among mankind is now in place.
Furthermore as a result of this those who follow Him will now know that He can protect them from all evil, both physical and spiritual, and will now learn that He is among them as the forgiver of sins. In the words of the Psalmist, ‘Do not forget all His benefits, Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases, Who redeems your life from destruction, Who crowns you with loving kindness and tender mercies’ (Psalm 103.3-4). Forgiveness of sins has always been of first importance in God’s eyes. And it was to be a part of the Messianic blessing (Isaiah 43.25; 44.22).
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus enters into a boat, crosses over the sea and comes to His own city, and in the parallel His actions result in the glorifying of God. Compare 8.23, 27 where He similarly entered a boat and it again resulted in men marvelling. His journeys all had a purpose. In ‘b’ the man is brought to Him, and in the parallel the man walks out on his own. In ‘c’ Jesus informs the man that he is forgiven, and in the parallel justifies it by His healing power. In ‘d’ He is accused of blaspheming, and in the parallel He poses His defence. And centrally He expresses His distress at the evil in men’s hearts.
9.1 ‘And he entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city.’
Having been rejected in Decapolis Jesus now returned to ‘His own city’, that is, to Capernaum (4.13). There is a pathos in this. It was not really His own city. He had been rejected from the town where He had been brought up. No wonder that He had nowhere to lay His head.
This interconnecting verse may well be seen as forming an inclusio with 8.23. It is finishing off the inner sequence. What follows is therefore not necessarily a part of the same time sequence. It is simply brought in here to complete the picture. (Mark in fact has it much earlier). It is sealing off the fact that Jesus has come to bring healing (8.1-17), deliverance and security (8.23-27), the vanquishing of man’s Enemy (8.28-34), and the forgiveness of sins (9.1-8). They are being ‘saved from their sins’ (1.21).
9.2a ‘And behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed.’
‘And behold.’ Compare verse 3. See also 8.2, 24, 29, 34. In each case it introduces something new and startling to which he wants to draw attention. It does not necessarily tie in what has been said previously. The leper did not necessarily come to Jesus immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. He simply came at some undefined time. But his coming was something to be noted. What follows did not necessarily happen immediately after the trip across the sea. It is simply being connected with it in order to bring out what Matthew wants his readers to understand about the coming of Jesus. It is something worthy of notice.
Here, in Matthew’s usual abbreviated form, we learn that a man was brought to Him lying on a bed. He was ‘sick of the palsy’, he had a weakness of the limbs, that is, in this case, he was paralysed. Nevertheless the ‘they’ who carried him are important, for they feature in the next verse. Mark tells us a little more about them and the difficulties that they had in getting to Jesus. But what matters to Matthew is that they did get to Jesus, and what the condition of the man was.
9.2b ‘And Jesus seeing their faith said to the sick of the palsy, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven.” ’
Jesus saw the faith of the men who had brought the paralytic and also the eager faith of the paralytic himself, and so He said to him, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven.” This must have surprised everyone. But it suggests that Jesus was aware not only of the man’s condition, but of his inner pain. He had only to look into his eyes to see that he was troubled. And that what he was troubled about was sin.
Sin is indeed often the thing that most concerns many people. The Psalmist recognised that forgiveness of it was his first need, for he cried, ‘Bless the Lord, O my soul, -- Who forgives all your iniquities, who heals all your diseases’ (Psalm 103.3). He was aware in the depths of his soul that forgiveness was the first of all God’s benefits. And this man’s heart was clearly crying out for forgiveness. So Jesus first went to the core of his real need.
The fact that Jesus addressed him as ‘Son’ suggests that he was a young man, and it is quite possible that his condition had made him more aware of sin than most, for he would often have asked himself, ‘why has this happened to me?’ And the answer that he would have received from most people at that time was that he must have done something which had greatly displeased God, that there must be something deeply wrong within him. So it would not be surprising if he bore a great burden of guilt. And it was that burden that Jesus wanted to remove. But this was something that did not please certain people who were listening at all.
What they cavilled at was not that Jesus was saying that God could forgive him. They also would have said that, on condition of course that he went through all the rigmaroles that they considered necessary in order for a man to find forgiveness. What they objected to was the clear statement of the man’s forgiveness as an undoubted fact no longer open to dispute, simply on Jesus’ word. This was to have a certainty that they could not allow.
9.3 ‘And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, “This man is blaspheming”.’
The Scribes were the teachers of the Law, and they had come to check Jesus out. Here was this man performing all these miracles, and they wanted to know if He was ‘sound’, that is, whether He taught what they taught. And these dreadful words convinced them that He did not. Indeed they considered that what He had said was blasphemy. Who was this man to dare to suggest that a man’s sins were certainly forgiven? Men could only hope and pray, and give alms, and then hope further that God would take notice of them. Only God could determine whether a man was worthy of forgiveness. For that was their problem. They did not believe in God’s free forgiveness.
But Jesus had come to bring men forgiveness. He had come to save His people from their sins (1.21). Thus he knew that forgiveness was available for all who truly turned to God from their past lives, seeking a true change of heart. And He had seen that in this man before Him.
Central to the idea of blasphemy was the using of God’s Name lightly, but here it clearly also included a careless claiming of the prerogatives of God. For that was what they saw Jesus as doing. Their thought was simply, ‘None can forgive sins apart from God’, and they considered that He did it in His own way, so that to claim the knowledge that a man was forgiven was insupportable arrogance.
9.4 ‘And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?” ’
But Jesus knew what they were saying. Indeed He may well have deliberately provoked it in order to get over to the people that in Him forgiveness had come for all who would turn to God with a view to repenting, turning from sin to God, serving Him and obeying His commandments. For He wanted them to know that in Him their past could be blotted out (18.23-35), and a way was provided for future forgiveness (6.12). Indeed Isaiah had made clear that this was God’s promise in the time of His Visitation (Isaiah 1.18; 43.25; 44.22). It was to be included in the task of the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53.3-6, 10). And indeed it was something that had always been God’s offer to men when they turned to Him (Exodus 34.6-7; Numbers 14.18; Psalm 103.4).
And because of this it was His prerogative as the One Who had come in His Father’s Name, as The Son of Man Whom God had established at His right hand to dispense justice and mercy (Daniel 7.14; Psalm 80.17), and had sent to earth (John 3.13) to bring the forgiveness of sins to all who would repent, something that should have been obvious to all from the miracles that He performed. Thus He saw their words as arising out of the evil that was in their hearts. In their prejudice they were refusing to recognise the evidence of the Holy Spirit at work within Him (12.28, 31). The casting out of demons was above all the evidence of the Spirit at work, and of the presence in Him of the Kingly Rule of God, which may well be why Matthew puts this incident after the healing of the demoniacs, and they therefore had no reason to doubt His authority as being from God. Indeed what greater proof was needed than that, that God was at work in Jesus? And if He was truly from God, then who could argue that He could not declare God’s forgiveness of men’s sins.
9.5 ‘For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Arise, and walk?” ’
He then challenged them on the basis of the evidence of His mighty works. Which was easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Arise, and walk?” The answer was that they were both impossible to man, but that they were both equally possible to God. And if God performed the one through a man of His choosing, would it not then demonstrate His approval of that man in all that He did? For all knew that God would not perform His mighty works through a blasphemer. So He set the proof of His right to declare the forgiveness of sins categorically and firmly on the basis of His ability to perform mighty wonders by God’s power.
This was a question that they could not answer (which was their tendency when they knew that really their case had been destroyed - Mark 11.27-33). They could hardly say that miracles of healing were not of God. Why, they had themselves taught that God only acted on behalf of those who pleased Him. Yet they dared not say that a man who could heal consistently was demonstrated to be of God, because they knew very well that Jesus could do it. On the other hand they could not deny it in front of the crowds, for they would have simply looked at them in amazement. For this was their basic sin, the ‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit’, that they would accept nothing that did not conform with their teaching, even if the evidence that it was from God, and that the Spirit was at work, was indisputable.
9.6 “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (then he says to the sick of the palsy), “Arise, and take up your bed, and go up to your house.”
Having stunned them to silence Jesus then positively declared His position and His intention. In order that they might know that He truly was the Son of Man, the God-anointed One of Daniel 7, and therefore had the right while on earth to forgive sins He would perform a miracle. He would do what they could not do, what only One Who was approved of God could do. He would enable this man to walk. Then if they were honest, having failed to argue against His reasoning, they would have to admit His right to forgive sins.
So turning to the paralytic He told him to rise from his mattress and walk home carrying his mattress. What better proof could there be that he was genuinely healed, and therefore now coming under the approval of God, and therefore also forgiven?
9.7 ‘And he arose, and departed to his house.’
And the man did what he was told and walked home with his mattress on his shoulder. Jesus’ claims were vindicated.
9.8 ‘But when the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.’
Matthew is not interested in the reaction of the Scribes. His concern was for the glory of God. The Scribes, put to flight rationally, ceased to matter to him (he does not seek to show them up in a bad light at every turn). What mattered was that the crowds recognised what had happened. They were filled with awe and they glorified God because He gave such power ‘to men’. They still saw Jesus as just a man among men, even if a prophet. The inference is that while they were honest enough to admit the truth of what they had seen (unlike some others who could be mentioned) they had not appreciated the fuller truths which were coming home to the disciples that Jesus was more than just another man.
But the reader is expected to see further than that. He is expected to see that by providing both forgiveness and healing ‘on earth’ Jesus was demonstrating that the Kingly Rule of Heaven was present on earth as it had always been in Heaven (Psalm 22.28; 103.19; 93.1; 97.1; 99.1; 110.1). The Son of Man was ruling on earth as He would one day in Heaven.
The Call of Matthew 9.9.
With this verse Matthew comes to the end of the subsection, which began in 8.18 with the reference to other disciples considering following Jesus. Perhaps there is a stress on the fact that while the others had been in doubt, there was no doubt about Matthew. He did unquestioningly follow Jesus. Matthew was probably chronologically called before this, but it is placed here partly to seal the subsection that has gone before, and partly to introduce what follows (a gathering which takes place in his house. This gathering was probably some time after his call). There may also be the point that the preaching in 4.17 resulted in the successful calling of four disciples, now the revelation made up to this point has resulted in the successful calling of a fifth. The number of genuine disciples who recognise the uniqueness of Jesus, and who submit to the Kingly Rule of Heaven, is gradually growing.
9.9 ‘And as Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man, called Matthew, sitting at the place for the collection of tolls, and he says to him, “Follow me.” And he arose, and followed him.’
In the other synoptic Gospels Matthew is spoken of as Levi at the time of his calling, but as Matthew in the list of Apostles. It was not unusual for people to have two Hebrew names in those days, as many inscriptions make clear. Any speculation on the question of his name is thus just that. Pure speculation to which no answer will ever be found. It is quite likely that Jesus (or indeed he himself) changed his name when He called him, indicating by it that he was a new man. This would adequately explain the change from Levi to Matthew in the other Gospels, with Matthew being his discipleship name.
We can imagine the shock that many must have had when Jesus chose a public servant as a disciple. Such public servants were looked on as traitors and were ostracised. They collected taxes on behalf of either the Romans or Herod and took a cut for themselves, regularly using violent methods in order to achieve their targets. They would be accompanied by soldiers and were not above having people roughed up. While as a ‘customs official’ Matthew would not have indulged in the wildest excesses of the taxation industry most people would have frowned to see him amongst the Apostles.
That he collected tolls, probably at a border post, indicates a man used to keeping records. He would thus be a useful addition to the Apostolic band, and that especially because he would be meticulous in the keeping of records. He may well therefore have become the group’s recorder. As his position had presumably also ensured that he was fluent in at least Greek and Aramaic, with a smattering of other languages as well, this would well qualify him for keeping records of Jesus’ teaching and ensuring that it was later passed on to the churches.
His call was simple. Jesus said, ‘Follow Me.’ And he did. It was a royal command. But there is no reason to doubt that he had been an avid listener to Jesus’ message prior to this. We can almost certainly assume that Jesus had previously spoken with him, and had now picked him out as suitable to be an Apostle. The impression given is that like the four that we know of as called previously (4.18-22) he followed Jesus immediately. Presumably there were colleagues working with him who could take over his duties at the time. And we should consider the fact that if Jesus considered him to be suitable there can be no doubt about his ability to write a Gospel.
What Jesus Has To Offer And The Growth of Pharisaic Opposition (9.10-34).
We are now informed about the first open opposition to Jesus among the Pharisees. The Pharisees had seemingly previously approached John with a critical attitude, along with the Sadducees. They had felt that it was their duty to vet any new prophet. But they had been firmly put in their place (3.7-9). Now they will begin to criticise Jesus, and their criticism will grow and will continue on to the end. Not all Pharisees, however, were like this. Some did meet up with Jesus and hold conversations with Him (e.g. John 3.1-6; Luke 14.1; Mark 12.28-34). But here it is the antagonistic majority who are in mind.
They are mentioned three times in this passage, in verses 11, 14 and 34, and as a result we begin to recognise their growing hostility. Previously we have had the murmuring of the Scribes (9.3). Now the opposition will become more open, and He will be more closely observed. They will first criticise Him for the company He keeps (verse 11), then indirectly for not encouraging fasting (verse 14), and finally, quite falsely, for casting out devils by the prince of devils (verse 34). This last is what shows up their total hypocrisy, for they had no grounds for such a claim. It was simply a let out for them because they had no other explanation for His success, apart from the one that they were not willing to contemplate, that He really was from God. But we should note that Matthew does not yet associate them with the Scribes in their opposition. That would become prominent later
The original Pharisees had been genuine protectors of the Law, but many of them (although not all) had gradually become more taken up with the ritual that their teachers had laid down than with the root purposes of the Law. To them the correct washing of the hands, the observance of minutiae about the Sabbath, and the tithing of even the smallest thing had become more important than a genuine concern for others. And they suspiciously watched others in order to ensure that they maintained the same standards as themselves, especially people like Jesus and John, because they were so sure that they were right.
On the other hand Jesus stands in contrast to them and stresses what He has come to offer. This will be revealed in 9.10-35. He has come in order to help those who have been neglected by religious people (9.10). He wanted to reach down and lift up the fallen. He has come as a physician (9.12). He wanted to heal the spiritually needy. He wanted to bring sinners to God. And that involved meeting up with them. He has come as the Bridegroom to bring something new, putting the old aside, for His presence as the Bridegroom is the proof that a new age is upon them (9.15-17). He has come as the Life-giver to offer life and restoration (9.18-26). He has come to open the eyes of the blind and to loosen the tongue of the dumb (9.27-34). He has come bringing the Good News of God’s Kingly Rule offered to all who will accept it (9.35).
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus is criticised by the Pharisees for the company He keeps, and similarly in the parallel. In ‘b’ Jesus has brought something new as the heavenly Bridegroom and in the parallel blind eyes are opened. Centrally in ‘c’ is the raising of the dead and the cleansing of the woman because of her faith.
Jesus Has Come as the Healer of the Sins of All Men, But the Pharisees Criticise Him For Eating with Public Servants and Sinners (9.10-13).
Jesus now makes clear that He has come in order to save the undeserving. That was something that the Pharisees, who slaved at being ‘deserving’, could not understand. Indeed they could not comprehend why, if He was of God, He could possibly behave in the way that He did. It went against all their principles. They failed to realise that God was like that. For to them God was a stern taskmaster Who did not give anyone an inch, or even half an inch. They had overlooked the laws about love and compassion.
Note that in ‘a’ Jesus sat down with public servants and sinners, and in the parallel it was because He had come precisely in order to call people like that. In ‘b’ the Pharisees ask why Jesus eats with them, and in the parallel He explains why.
9.10 ‘And it came about that as he reclined at meat in the house, behold, many public servants and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.’
We know from the other synoptic Gospels that this gathering was in Matthew’s house. He, together with Jesus and His other disciples, had come there to eat. Often at such meals Jesus would almost inevitably become the focal point. It was so here. This was probably some time after Matthew’s conversion and call to discipleship, and he had therefore called together some old friends to meet Jesus, possibly even at their request. These consisted of public servants like he had been, together with other people who were looked on by the Pharisees as ‘sinners’. By ‘sinners’ is meant those who failed to live according to even the minimum requirements of the Pharisees. They would include many who worked in trades that made it difficult to do so, for example, tanners, and probably also some with bad reputations. To eat with such people was to risk becoming ‘unclean’. The Pharisees would have withdrawn in horror at the idea.
But even worse were the public servants. They served a foreign state, who used locals for collecting taxes and other revenues in order to try to make them more acceptable. But to the Jews these taxes were an insult to their religion. So these public servants were seen by the vast majority of Jews as traitors, especially in a fanatically nationalistic country like Galilee, and even more so as they used their positions in order to make themselves rich. They were on the whole notoriously dishonest. They often overtaxed the people, keeping what they skimmed off for themselves, they would take large bribes so as to look the other way when assessing taxes, and they presented a false picture to the authorities to whom they had to account. They were by the nature of their contacts looked on as unclean, and they were excluded from the synagogues. Along with robbers and murderers they were unacceptable as witnesses in Jewish courts. No one with any respect for themselves would have relations with them.
However Jesus did not hesitate, and His disciples followed His lead (they had even been willing to accept Matthew into their number). This did not mean that Jesus compromised on His own standards, nor that He relaxed His requirements for discipleship. But it did mean that He did not cut Himself off from them nor demand of them unnecessary observances. They would not, however, be there ‘partying’. The point was that they had come to hear what Jesus had to say.
‘In the house.’ It has been suggested that this rather vague description arises from the fact that the writer was speaking of his own home. How often many of us must have said, ‘I’ve got one in the house’ or ‘let’s go into the house’, calling it that because of its familiarity to us.
9.11 ‘And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with the public servants and sinners?” ’
To the Pharisees what Jesus was doing was unpardonable. To them their rituals had become the be all and end all of their lives. And they could not see how Jesus could take the risk of being religiously defiled. To them that was offensive to God because of their perverted ideas about God. So they challenged His disciples as to why Jesus was not more fastidious. Why did He eat with public servants and sinners?
Such meals as this would be held in an open room or courtyard, and anyone could gain access to it, and often observe it from afar. No doubt the Pharisees had sent their spies to keep an eye on what was happening. And when they reported back it was then that the Pharisees approached the disciples about the situation. Or perhaps they had acted as spies themselves, determined to catch Him out. In their eyes a prophet who did not live in accordance with their interpretations of the Law was a scandal.
9.12 ‘But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are whole have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” ’
When Jesus heard what was being said He patiently explained His position to the Pharisees. He pointed out that a doctor did not go to those who were well. He went to those who were ill. It was the ill who needed a doctor. And thus as He was Himself a physician of souls it was necessary for Him to mix with those who needed His help. It was after all those who were ‘smitten of God’ whom He had promised to heal (Hosea 6.1).
His claim that He Himself was a doctor of the spiritually sick was, of course, of considerable significance. While the Pharisees considered that their most important aim must be to avoid defilement, Jesus was saying that, like a doctor, it was necessary for Him to risk defilement in order to help others. Furthermore He was also setting Himself up as fulfilling God’s own ministry. For it was God Who had offered Himself as the Doctor of souls (Hosea 6.1; 7.1). He was thus claiming a unique position with God.
He wanted both the Pharisees and the world to know that He had not come simply to mingle with ‘those who are whole’, that is, ‘the righteous’, (those who strove to keep the Law and thought that they could do so, who would not be many in number). He had come rather to help those who were sick of soul and in need. He had come to save and restore. Those who were in health and whole did not need a doctor. It was only those who were sick who did so. Thus He was here to be a spiritual doctor to sinners and to all in need. He was here to call them to turn to God in repentance. And in order to achieve that He had to go where they were.
It is probable that He had mind here the words in Jeremiah 8.22, ‘Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?’ That expressed why He had come. He had come for the purpose of meeting that lack, that is, to provide a balm in Gilead, and to be that physician. In a sense there were some who did not need a physician. There were the godly in Israel. They had already become right with God. But He was not suggesting that the Pharisees did not need a physician. He knew that in fact, on the whole, they desperately needed one, for their righteousness was not sufficient for entry under the Kingly Rule of Heaven (5.20). Rather He was pointing out that the recovery of God’s people in these last days did require a physician like Himself, and that He had therefore come for all who recognised their need and admitted their spiritual ill-health. Those who thought themselves already righteous would not, of course, come to Him. Thus He would not be able to help them. But for all who did recognise their need, whoever they were, He was available.
His claim to be God’s physician must be seen for what it is. He is setting Himself up as having a certain level of uniqueness. The point is that He is able to restore sinners because He is not a sinner. An ailing and sick doctor would be of little use to his patients. And He is calling them to repentance, to turn to God with all their hearts, which is something that He can do because He Himself needs no repentance. Here then as the only Son He was acting on behalf of His Father. We may compare Jesus’ willingness to be a healer here with the man in Isaiah 3.7, who was not prepared to be a healer because it would be too costly and demanding. Jesus minded neither the cost nor the demand. The Father had sought a physician and He was here.
9.13 “But you go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
‘Go and learn.’ This was a regular Jewish way of directing people to seek spiritual truth. And He informed them that where they should look was in Hosea 6.6. There we read, ‘I desire covenant love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.’ And there the emphasis was on following true righteousness and being God-like, rather than on the observance of ritual. Ritual had its place. But only if it helped men to love God and their neighbour. The purpose of ritual was to bring men to the knowledge of God. Once it got in the way of doing that, or replaced that, it had to be got rid of. Thus compassion had to come before rigidity of ritual (compare Isaiah 1.11-18). And that was why Jesus had come, not to call the righteous, but sinners. Any who were truly righteous would not need His help. It was the repentant sinners whose heart cried out for God, Who needed His help, and they were the ones He was mixing with. And that was in line with the heart of God.
As Hosea 6.1-2 makes clear, this coming of a special physician from God was to be a feature of the last days in order to bring His people back to Himself.
Jesus Has Come As The Bridegroom Bringing Something Totally New (9.14-17).
Having revealed Himself as the Great Physician, a further incident about fasting leads on to His revelation of Himself as the heavenly Bridegroom. John the Baptist had already given an indication of this when he spoke of himself as the ‘friend of the Bridegroom’ (John 3.29). Now Jesus applies the thought of the Bridegroom to Himself, and gives an indication that He is already aware of the future that awaits Him. He will be ‘taken away’.
In the Old Testament it is God Who is the heavenly Bridegroom. In Isaiah we read, “As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so will your God rejoice over you” (Isaiah 62.5, compare Jeremiah 2.2; Hosea 2.19-23). He longed for His people to become His bride and thus become faithful to their marriage covenant (compare Isaiah 50.1; 54.6), and now Jesus has come as Bridegroom to His people.
Note that in ‘a’ the question is posed as to why Jesus’ disciples do not fast, and in the parallel the answer is, ‘because they put new wine into fresh wineskins’. In ‘b’ the presence of the Bridegroom will result in His being ‘taken away’ and in the parallel the intermixture of an unshrunk patch on an old garment results in it being torn.
9.14 ‘Then come to him the disciples of John, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?” ’
The disciples of John now approach Jesus, but it would appear possible that they had been in consultation with the Pharisees, who were clearly also commenting on the lack of fasting among Jesus’ disciples. It appeared to them that their lack of fasting demonstrated a lack of sincerity, and they may well have been genuinely puzzled. The disciples of John had of course good reason to fast as an act of mourning, for their great leader languished in prison. That would make it even more reason why they should feel that Jesus’ disciples should be fasting as well at what was a dark time for the godly in Israel. We have good reason to believe that the Pharisees fasted every Monday and Thursday until around 15.00 hours. It would appear possible that John’s disciples may have done something similar. Then there were also voluntary fasts connected with some of the great Feasts which some of them had just been involved in.
9.15 ‘And Jesus said to them, “Can the sons of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.” ’
Jesus points out that such fasting would be inappropriate for His disciples, because for them this was a time of joy. The Bridegroom has come! The Kingly Rule of Heaven is upon them. Those therefore who are benefiting from it should not be fasting but rejoicing.
His first point is that fasting is reserved for times of mourning and unhappiness, mourning over failure and unhappiness about sin, and especially mourning because God had not yet acted in history and because the Messiah and the Holy Spirit’s outpouring had not yet come. And the implication of His words therefore is that the time of the Messiah, and of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring is now here, something which even outweighs the suffering of John.
He points out that those who are appointed at a wedding to be with the bridegroom to sustain him and enjoy his pleasure with him (the ‘sons of the bridechamber’) cannot fast, for they would then mar the celebrations. Rather must they eat and drink and be joyful. A Jewish wedding lasted for seven days, and they were days of feasting and merriment during which the bridegroom would be celebrating. And he would have with him his closest friends to share his joy with him. To seek to fast under such circumstances would be an insult. (Even the Rabbis excluded people at a wedding feast from the need to fast). Thus it was a unique occasion, and only a unique occasion, that exempted His disciples from fasting.
This in itself was a remarkable claim, that because He had come men need not fast. It was to claim divine prerogative. Moses could not have said it. Elijah could not have said it. John the Baptiser could not have said it. It required a Greater than they.
But unquestionably Jesus was conveying a deeper message even than this, as the next verse brings out. He was pointing out that the Messiah had come. He was pointing to Himself as the great Bridegroom whose presence meant that men need not fast, the great Bridegroom promised in the Scriptures. In Isaiah 62.5 the prophet had said “As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so will your God rejoice over you”. The picture there was one that was emphasised and poignant. Indeed Isaiah pointed out that they had previously been called Forsaken, and their land Desolate, but now both would be renamed because God delighted in them and their land would be married to God. They would become God’s bride. He would be their Bridegroom. So there God is the Bridegroom, and His restored people are the Bride, and it is clearly pointing to the time of restoration. In the same way Jesus, by describing Himself as the Bridegroom of God’s restored people, shows that He is uniquely standing in the place of God and introducing the time of restoration.
A similar vivid picture is also brought out in Jeremiah 2.2 where the Lord says of His people, “I remember concerning you the kindness of your youth, the love of your espousals, how you went after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.” Here we have the Lord as the Bridegroom in waiting (compare Jeremiah 2.32. Compare also Ezekiel 16.8-14). It is thus very doubtful whether a discerning listener would fail to catch at least something of this implication.
Furthermore that Jesus emphatically saw Himself as the Bridegroom comes out elsewhere in the Gospel. Consider the marriage feast for the son (22.2-14) and the Bridegroom at the wedding where the foolish virgins were excluded (25.1-13), both clear pictures of Jesus. So His being the Bridegroom was a theme of His. And as we have seen John the Baptiser described Him in the same way (John 3.29). Thus Jesus was by this declaring in another way that the ‘the Kingly Rule of God has drawn near’, and that He was a unique figure come from God, the heavenly Bridegroom, God’s Messiah.
His point is therefore that if God has come on earth as the Bridegroom, how can there be fasting by those who have recognised Him and welcomed Him? It would not be seemly. The others only fast because the truth has not come home to them, but all who recognise Him must set aside their fasting for it would not be seemly in the presence of the Bridegroom.
“But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, then will they fast.” Then Jesus comes in with an ominous warning. The words He has spoken confirm that we are to see in the picture of the Bridegroom something significant concerning Jesus. And this is clear in that the Bridegroom, Who was now here, will one day be ‘taken away’ and then His disciples will have good cause to fast. Jesus knew already from the voice at His baptism that He was called on to fulfil the ministry of the suffering Servant, and this had been confirmed by John’s words, “Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1.29). Thus we have here the first indication from Him of His awareness of the brutal end that awaits Him. He knew that He must face suffering on behalf of His people. And then indeed His disciples would fast.
Interestingly the words do not encourage regular fasting. The disciples would indeed sorrow but their sorrow would be turned into joy (John 16.20). Thus the need for fasting would quickly pass and would be no more. There is no real encouragement to fasting here. It is not, however forbidden. The point is that it is not required. Those who serve the King are not bound by petty regulations but are concerned with how they can please Him. If they fast it is in order to better serve Him by spending longer in prayer in a state of enhanced awareness, not because it is necessary for their own spiritual sustenance, for as regards that He is more than sufficient.
So we have here both Jesus’ testimony to the fact that He is God’s Sent One, over Whom men should rejoice, and with it an indication that He is aware of the future that awaits Him. The cross would not catch Him by surprise (compare Luke 2.35). This declaration that Jesus has come as the heavenly Bridegroom and is inaugurating a new world is then brought out by two illustrations.
9.16 “And no man puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for then that which should fill it up takes from the garment, and a worse tear is made.”
By His illustrations here Jesus now declares that it is not a time for supplementing the old ideas and trying to repair them. The inference is that what is needed is new clothing and new wine. The old is not to be supplemented by the new, but the new must replace the old. It is a clear indication that in Jesus has come a new age. The prophets had prophesied until John (11.13). But now a greater than John was here. We are reminded by this illustration of God’s promises to reclothe His people (see the parallel idea in 22.11-12 and compare Zechariah 3.4-5 and the idea in Ezekiel 16.10-14 with 59-63). For giving them new wine to drink see Isaiah 25.6 and compare John 2.1-11.
But the new is to replace the old because the old is not what it should be. The new Israel that will replace the old (21.43) will return to the truths of its founding fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (8.11). It is what is cast out that is the old (8.12). We can compare how in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus has not produced a new Law, but has brought out the true meaning of the original. The Law that is rejected is not the true Law, but the misinterpreted Law. The true Law is enhanced and glorified.
The Old Testament prophets had looked forward to this new age. They had looked for God to establish His Kingly Rule. This idea had been part of Isaiah’s inaugural call (Isaiah 6.1), and a central feature of his ministry (Isaiah 52.7). And He would do it through the Coming One (Isaiah 7.14; 9.6-7; 11.1-4).
In context the application of these words is as a defence against fasting. It is saying that we should not take old ideas, (in context the ideas about fasting), and try to improve them by mixing them with the new. That would be like using unshrunk cloth with which to mend the old. That would be ridiculous. When the garment was laundered the unshrunk cloth would shrink and the old cloth would be even further torn. Instead of the new patch filling the hole, it would make the hole bigger. Thus to put together the ideas of the old ragged ways and the new unspoiled ways would be incompatible. They do not match. With Jesus everything has begun anew.
This suggests that He saw fasting as being mainly for the old dispensation, but not for the new. The old world fasted because they waited in penitence for God to act. But now God was acting, and fasting was a thing of the past. Now was the time for rejoicing.
However, the words also contain within them the general idea that what Jesus Himself has come to bring is new. ‘The Kingly Rule of Heaven has drawn near’. So now is to be a time of rejoicing and everything must be looked at in its light. The old had past, and the new has come (compare 2 Corinthians 5.17). Two examples of this appear in the Old Testament. The first is in Ezekiel 16 where Israel, having been splendidly clothed by God was defiled because of her idolatrous practises. But God promised that in the end He would put all right. Their fortunes would be restored. The second is in Zechariah 4.3-5 where Joshua the High Priest, the representative of Israel, was clothed in new clothing as an illustration of acceptance by God. From these we may gather that Jesus had also come to reclothe His people with pure clothing (compare Matthew 22.11-12; Revelation 19.8).
The extraordinary significance of this statement must not be overlooked. Jesus is clearly declaring that in His coming as the Bridegroom at this time a whole new way of thinking and living has been introduced. He is the introducer of a new age that is even at this time bursting in on the world, for being a Bridegroom indicates that a marriage is about to take place, introduced by the Messianic Banquet which the disciples are already enjoying. So all this is not far in the future, it is resulting because Jesus is here. That is why they are not fasting. The acceptable year of the Lord has arrived (Luke 4.17-18). And their repentance and forgiveness in the new age into which they have now entered will lead to lives of joy as they walk in company with first the earthly and then the heavenly (risen) Bridegroom. Thus fasting will be unnecessary except in exceptional circumstances, in the brief period before final victory. Everything is different and old ways must be forgotten.
And this is because Jesus is introducing new clothing. This gains new meaning in the light of Jesus’ idea elsewhere, which He Himself may have had in mind, for the man who seeks to enter the heavenly wedding without having a proper wedding garment on will be cast out (22.11-12 compare Revelation 19.8; 3.5, 18). Those who would enter His presence must be clothed with the righteousness that He provides. There must be no partially patched up clothes for them.
It will be noted that the illustration here is different from that in Luke 5.36, for Luke speaks there of taking the new cloth from a new garment, which heightens the folly, as it destroys the new garment as well. It is clear that Jesus used the same illustration a number of times, varying it slightly when He wanted to make a different point, and that Matthew and Mark have used one example, and Luke another. In Luke ‘and He spoke also a parable to them’ may be seen as suggesting that it is Luke or his source who have brought the ideas together there. But the fact that these saying are connected in all three synoptics, while at the same time being slightly different from each other, might point to the tradition as a whole as having done the bringing together. Alternately it may be that the unshrunk cloth is simply a slight abbreviation of the slightly longer illustration which emphasises the major point, with Luke giving us Jesus’ full words. Matthew and Mark may thus simply be giving an abbreviation of them. A piece from a new garment would in fact be unshrunk cloth.
9.17 “Neither do men put new wine into old wineskins, or else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
The point is emphasised again, this time using the idea of putting new wine into old wineskins. To do so would be to cause the dried out old skins to burst. They are no longer elastic enough to cope with the fermentation of new wine. Then all would be lost, the new wine and the wineskins, for the skins would perish.
Here there is included the idea also found in John 2, that the new wine of the Kingly Rule of God has come. But it is being emphasised that it must not be put into old wineskins. The wineskins that had been built up by Judaism must be thrust aside, as He had Himself done in the Sermon on the Mount.
But the above illustrations carry also another warning, although it may well not have been in Jesus’ mind. For the point lying behind the illustrations is that the introduction of the new into the old will cause rending and perishing. And that is precisely what would happen. The old wineskins of Judaism would be unable to take the arrival of the new wine of Jesus with the result that it would cause His death. Jesus had come to a country which was like dried out, old wineskins, with the inevitable consequence that His coming could only result in His death, and then for them the new wine would be lost because they had clung to the old, and it would result in the destruction of the place to which He had come (the old wineskins, Jerusalem, would perish). For there was a sense in which it was unavoidable that the new would clash with the old.
“But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.”
Here is the solution to the problem, to put the new wine into new wineskins, and not try to mix it with the old. Everything must be seen anew. Thus must they rejoice in the bridegroom, and not fast over Him, and thus must they receive His new message, putting the old (Judaism) aside. Their righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees (5.20). Then they will not destroy themselves by mixing the new with the old (as in fact part of the later church sadly did).
The idea is carried further in John 2.1-11 where the new wine symbolises the glories of the Messianic age indicating that the time has come for the fulfilment of Isaiah 25.6. We should note in all this that it is not what is recorded in the Scriptures that brings about the clash, it is the way in which it has been interpreted and used by its interpreters. The Scriptures contain the same message throughout, salvation by the grace of God through repentance and the offering of blood, and His continual gracious working in their lives.
‘Both are preserved.’ That is, the new wine and the new wineskins. There is no thought that the old is to be preserved. The tragedy would be if the disciples began to incorporate the wrong ideas that had grown up in Judaism into the new community that Jesus was founding. There is no thought that the old was to survive alongside.
(There was, of course, a sense in which the old way in the best senses was still necessary until the new message had reached out into the world, and it would therefore be necessary for it to be maintained for a while. There were godly people around the world who had never heard the Good News. They still came to God on the basis of the old ideas. And Jesus was wise enough not to want to tear that situation apart. For it would be many decades, and even longer, before all had had the chance of hearing and responding to the new. But the old that Jesus was casting off was not these genuine Scriptural foundations. What He was rejecting was the misinterpreting of it by Judaism in the same way as they had misinterpreted the Law (5.20). What Jesus abhorred was the thought of something which was a continual mixture of both the old misinterpreted religion and the new purified religion. In the end the old had to be shed, a process greatly helped by the destruction of Jerusalem. But none of that is in mind in His statement that ‘both are preserved’).
The Raising of A Ruler’s Daughter And The Healing Of The Woman With A Discharge of Blood (9.18-26).
No better illustration of the fact that the new had come can be found than here. In the raising of the anonymous Ruler’s daughter we are provided with a foretaste of the resurrection. It was a pointer to the fact that to all ‘Rulers’, as to all men and women, new life was being offered. And in the woman who was made clean we have a picture of the prospective new Israel who need to reach out and touch Jesus and be cleansed. (Compare for the latter Ezekiel 16.60-63).
In what follows Jesus goes to the aid of a young girl who has died, and raises her from the dead. But there is a subsidiary story, which is always seen as an integral part of the main story. This reveals a woman who was continually ceremonially ‘unclean’ because of a discharge of blood from within her which she had had for twelve years. She too was dying, and she had been dying for twelve years. And she had found no hope anywhere until the day when she came to Jesus and found that He could make the unclean clean. Both were in their own way representative of the people of God, dead in sin and unclean before God.
But in order to confirm the lesson lying behind this we need to go to a passage in Ezekiel 16. There Jerusalem was likened to a baby, cast out at birth covered in the blood flow of its mother, whom God had commanded ‘in her blood’ to live (verse 6). He then betrothed her to Himself, but she remained naked (it is not a natural picture). And when she came to an age for love (i.e. about twelve years of age) He wiped the blood from her (verse 9). So either the idea is that for twelve years she had been covered in vaginal blood, or that she was once again covered in blood because of her menstruation, seen as connecting back to her first condition. And now she was His to be restored by His mercy to full glory.
It would seem that this is the lesson behind both the child whom God will make to live, and the woman with a flow of blood for twelve years which will be made clean. The two together reveal that Jesus (the Bridegroom - 9.15) has come to make clean and give life to His people so as to betroth them to Himself.
Note that in ‘a’ the ruler came and worshipped Him, and in the parallel His fame went throughout the land. In ‘b’ he pleads for his daughter’s life and in the parallel Jesus grants his request. In ‘c’ Jesus arose and followed him and in the parallel they arrive at the ruler’s house. In ‘d’ the diseased woman says to herself that if she touches Jesus’ clothing she will be made whole, and in the parallel she is made whole. Centrally in ‘e’ it is her faith which has made her whole.
9.18 ‘While he spoke these things to them, behold, there came a ruler, and worshipped him (or ‘paid him homage’), saying, “My daughter is even now dead, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.” ’
‘While He spoke these things to them.’ This could be intended to be specific (and thus as signifying ‘while He was actually speaking what has just been recorded’) or it could be intended to be more vague (‘while He was teaching similar types of things to those which have just been recorded’) as a convenient means of linking the narratives. In the latter case he would simply be saying that the Ruler burst in on Jesus at some time when He was teaching about the coming of what was new. Compare Mark 5.21 which is also vague. Neither confirms the true chronological position of the story. Exact chronology was not important to them
We have in this whole account a typical Matthaean abbreviation. He condenses a more complicated situation mainly in order to save space, but possibly in this verse also for the purpose of emphasising from the start that by the time Jesus arrived at the house she really was dead. By establishing that fact here there would be no danger of anyone (well, nearly anyone) misinterpreting Jesus’ later comment about her being ‘asleep’. In order to obtain the full facts the sentence has to be divided into two halves, the first indicating that the Ruler came to Jesus and fell at His feet, and the second indicating that the Ruler informed Jesus that his daughter was dead, for this latter in fact took place some time after the former. It may thus be a typical piece of journalistic condensation. Basically Matthew is saying as briefly as possible that the father came to Jesus for help, informed Jesus (later) that his daughter was dead, and asked Him to heal her in the usual manner. The way in which Jesus regularly healed was no mystery. It was, however, unusual. There is a solitary reference to Abraham being called on to lay hands on a sick person in a Qumran scroll, but it is a rare occurrence.
Alternately Matthew may be depicting the Ruler as exaggerating the case in order to bring home to Jesus the seriousness of the situation. By ‘is dead’ he may simply have meant ‘as good as dead’, ‘could die at any moment’, ‘dead if you do not come and do something about it’. (Compare ‘let the dead bury their dead’). This may have been a commonly recognised way of indicating nearness to death, especially when calling a doctor. ‘She is dead if you do not come quickly with your medicines’. But if this is so we have no other evidence of it. On the other hand this interpretation is supported by the words that follow. For the suggestion that Jesus could lay hands on her so that she might live suggests that the father did not see her as actually dead, but was hoping for a cure. The Ruler would have had no cause to think that Jesus could raise the dead by laying hands on them, but he would have every cause to think that Jesus could heal the sick by doing so. (Note that in fact Jesus does not lay His hands on her, so this is not conforming the story to the later facts).
We are given fuller details in the other synoptic Gospels. When the Ruler first made contact with Jesus, as far as he was aware his daughter was still alive, although dying. It was only later when messengers arrived to tell him that his daughter was dead that he passed that information on to Jesus. So the basic facts as depicted in Matthew are right, it is the inessential (to Matthew) detail that is missing.
This should act as a warning to us that in many Bible stories details are often missing so that we should beware of drawing lessons from silence, or overemphasising what might simply be the result of condensation. But we do note that while Matthew elsewhere draws attention to outstanding faith (8.10; 9.28), even doing so later in this story (9.22), there is no mention of the Ruler’s faith here, simply because Matthew knew the full story and knew that his was a wavering faith, and not something to be especially commended.
‘The Ruler.’ He was a ruler of the synagogue and therefore respected, playing an important part in society. We must not judge the attitude of the synagogues by the Pharisees (see 12.9; 13.54), although Jesus was aware that His Apostles would also experience rough treatment in some synagogues (10.17).
9.19 ‘And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.’
Responding to the Ruler’s plea Jesus arose from where He was sat teaching, and followed him, accompanied by His disciples.
9.20-21 ‘And behold, a woman, who had a discharge of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the border (or ‘fringe’ or ‘tassel’) of his cloak. For she said within herself, “If I do but touch his garment, I will be made whole.” ’
In the crowd that followed Jesus was a woman who ought not to have been there, for she was permanently ritually unclean (Leviticus 15.25). She had a flow of vaginal blood that never stopped flowing. (Luke tells us that she had spent a fortune on doctors, and now she was in poverty and all hope had gone). But she had heard of Jesus, and no doubt disguised in some way, crept into the crowd around Him. She knew that what she was about to do was unforgivable, and would not want her neighbours to know that she was there. For when she touched this prophet she would be making Him ritually unclean, together with all the people around her who touched her. Religiously she was human dynamite. Indeed, this may well have been why she only intended to touch the hem of his garment. She had probably persuaded herself that that was excusable because it was not really touching Him. Like the Scribes and Pharisees, people have always been good at dissimulation.
So in the end her desperation overrode everything else and quietly and surreptitiously she made her way through the crowd and touched either the hem of His robe or the tassel required by Numbers 15.37-38 to be worn by all Jewish males (compare 14.36). The idea of the tassels, which every Jewish male was supposed to wear in order to indicate his concern for God’s commandments, would be of great interest to his Jewish readers.
The hymnwriter sums it up aptly:
She may thus in fact have touched one of the tassels that every Jewish man had on his garment (Numbers 15.38), but either way it was effective. Immediately she sensed the change in her. For the first time in years the flow of blood had dried up. She was healed. She would hardly have been able to believe it. It would have seemed too good to be true.
It was a picture of what could also happen to Israel if only they too would reach out and touch Jesus. As God had promised to the woman in Ezekiel 16 so long before, full restoration was available when she was ready to turn to Him.
9.22 ‘But Jesus turning and seeing her said, “Daughter, be of good cheer, your faith has made you whole.” And the woman was made whole from that hour.’
Matthew then brings out the point of this story. It is the woman’s faith, wavering though it was, that had made her whole. It will be the same for the Ruler. In order to appreciate the emotion of the story we need to read it in the other synoptic Gospels, but in order to appreciate the basic point Matthew is admirable. All who come to Jesus in faith will be ‘made whole’.
To Jesus it was important that the woman recognise that she was not healed because she had touched Him, but because her faith had reached out to Him. ‘Made whole’ (saved) almost certainly indicates not only physical healing but spiritual blessing as well. It could hardly be otherwise. The crowds may have had doubts about Jesus, but from this moment on she had none.
9.23-24 ‘And when Jesus came into the ruler’s house, and saw the flute-players, and the crowd making a tumult, he said, “Give place, for the damsel is not dead, but sleeps.” And they laughed him to scorn.’
On arriving at the ruler’s house Jesus found that the funeral arrangements had already begun. The professional flute players had been called in (only Matthew mentions this) and official mourning was taking place. ‘Making a tumult.’ It was the practise at funerals to wail loudly, led by professionals who were experienced at it. (Later the minimum requirement, even for the funeral of a poor man, would be two fluteplayers and one wailing woman).
But Jesus turns to them and tells them to leave quietly, for the girl is only asleep and they will wake her up. This made them simply look at Him as if He was stupid. He had only just arrived. What did He know about the facts? On the other hand they knew, for they had seen the little girl lying dead on her mattress. And they jeered at Him. These jeerers were probably the professional mourners. Here was this prophet come to do a miracle and so full of confidence, and He was too late. The genuine mourners would probably rather have tearfully assured Him that she was dead. It may be, however, that feelings were exacerbated by the thought that if only He had come earlier He might have saved her.
‘She sleeps.’ There is no doubt that she was dead, and all knew it. But to Jesus it was only sleep because He knew that He was going to wake her, and He did not want everyone to know what He was accomplishing (see also John 11.11-14). Compare the use of ‘sleep’ for death when someone was to be ‘awoken’ from the dead in Daniel 12.2 (and see also 1 Thessalonians 4.13, 14; 5.10). That Matthew knew that she was dead comes out in that otherwise, if this was not a raising from he dead, he would not have given a full complement of miracles to satisfy 11.5. Luke the physician makes it all quite clear.
9.25 ‘But when the crowd was put forth, he entered in, and took her by the hand, and the damsel arose.’
Matthew tells the story briefly in order to bring out the main point. The crowd were put out, Jesus went in, and then He took her by the hand and she arose. Here we have a simple depiction of the resurrection. Resurrection was an important part of the expectancy of the coming age. The Messianic banquet would be accompanied by the defeat of death (Isaiah 25.6-8). The defeat of death and the raising of the dead was a part of the coming future triumph (Isaiah 26.19). God’s victory would be evidenced by those who ‘slept’ being ‘awoken’ (Daniel 12.2). It may well be because Jesus saw those whom He raised from the dead as forerunners and illustrations of the Resurrection, that He emphasised that they but ‘slept’ (verse 24; John 11.11). Note Jesus’ emphasis in the case of Lazarus that He was going to ‘awaken him out of sleep’ (compare Daniel 12.2), and the great similarity between His raising of Lazarus (John 11.43-44) and His description of the resurrection in John 5.28-29. Thus His raising of the Ruler’s daughter may be seen as a forerunner of the triumph of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (compare 11.5), as well as a picture of the spiritual life that He was offering to men and women (7.14; 19.29; John 5.24).
To touch a dead body was to incur defilement (as with the leper in 8.3) but there was no doubt an exception for Someone Who raised the dead person to life.
9.26 ‘And the fame concerning this went forth into all that land.’
And as is made clear in each of these last three stories the result was widespread ‘fame’. The stories of what had happened spread everywhere throughout the whole of Galilee. Here among them was One Who could raise the dead.
Among the lessons that Matthew was trying to convey was the fact that Jesus brought hope and life to both rich and poor. He treated both the wealthy Ruler and the impoverished, once wealthy, woman in exactly the same way. Thus all could know that His mercy reached out to all without exception, whether clean or unclean, wealthy or poor.
The Restoring Of Sight To Two Blind Men (9.27-31).
The raising of the Ruler’s daughter from the dead is now followed by a further Messianic sign, the opening of the eyes of the blind (see 11.5). In this incident there are two blind men who are healed. Rather than dismissing Matthew’s tendency to notice what others do not we should recognise from this that Matthew appears especially to have noticed examples of companionship (even in the case of the asses later). Perhaps it was because as an ex-public servant he had known what it was to long for genuine companionship.
These two men began by calling on Jesus as ‘the Son of David’. While this was not a Messianic title in wide use it is clear from the Psalms of Solomon that it was used by some as a Messianic title. And as we have seen in the introduction, there may be good cause for seeing it as especially connected with Solomon, the son of David. For in most of its uses in Matthew it is connected either with the healing of the blind or the exorcising of evil spirits. And Solomon, the son of David, was especially connected with the latter in Jewish tradition. Thus it indicated here that present among them was One who was recognised as being in the line of David and Solomon, the Messianic king and the Wise One who could cast out evil spirits and heal even the blind. But actual examples of the healing of the blind are never mentioned in either the Old Testament or Jewish literature. It was to be a Messianic function (Isaiah 35.5).
Note too the emphasis on their faith. This is the fourth mention of faith in this section (compare 8.10; 9.2, 22). It is being made clear that Jesus responds to faith.
The suggestion that Matthew is simply repeating, with alterations, the story in 20.29-34 is unacceptable when we consider how Matthew condenses his material to save space. The stories are clearly referring to different incidents, and in view of the fact that Jesus must have healed hundreds of blind people (e.g. 15.30) because they were common in Palestine, may simply be seen as indicating that even scholars can sometimes be ‘blind’. The superficial similarities are easily explicable. The truth is that men do tend to go around in pairs, as in fact the Apostles did, especially men who lived in a world of their own like blind men did, and who begged in popular begging places. The title ‘Son of David’ is regularly connected with the blind in Matthew. Indeed there would appear to have been an expectation that the Son of David would open the eyes of the blind, possibly based on Isaiah 35.5 (see 12.22; 20.30; 21.14 with 9). But however that may be the differences between the accounts are too significant to ignore.
Note that in ‘a’ they followed Him and called out loudly for mercy, and in the parallel they spread abroad His fame. In ‘b’ the blind men came to Him ,and in the parallel their eyes were opened. In ‘c’ He asked whether they believed and in the parallel He responded to their belief. Central in ‘d’ was their bold statement of faith in Him, ‘Yes, Lord’.
9.27 ‘And as Jesus passed by from there, two blind men followed him, crying out, and saying, “Have mercy on us, you son of David.”
Not only is this a Messianic sign following closely on the previous one, and deliberately connected to it, but it is also a picture of what will follow the resurrection. Blind eyes will be opened to an acceptance of the Messiah. For it is those who ‘see’ who are blessed (13.16). And this will be because of the merciful response of ‘the Son of David’ (see above and introduction).
For parallel appeals for merciful action see 15.22; 17.15; 20.30-31. It is made quite clear that the title Son of David is especially connected with exorcisms and the healing of the blind (12.23; 15.22; 20.30-31; 21.9 with 14). This may well be because by the time of Jesus Solomon, the son of David, was famed for his powers of exorcism (see introduction under Titles of Jesus).
We need not assume that Jesus had ignored their pleas. He may well have been unaware of them, or it may have been deliberately with the intention of speaking to them privately, (compare 15.23), and to test the genuineness of their faith (verse 28a). Or He may not have wanted to respond in an open way to the designation of ‘Son of David’ at this point in His ministry. It could have raised false expectations. The detail assumes an eyewitness, something quite common in Matthew’s Gospel. It is hardly likely to have been invented.
9.28a ‘And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus says to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”
The persistence of the blind men is brought out here. They had not only cried out but had followed Him home. And for two blind men that would not have been a simple thing to do. But their faith and desire was such that they persisted. They would not be denied. So Jesus asks them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” He wants them to appreciate Who it is Who will actually do this. Note that He does not say, ‘Do you believe that God is able to do this?’ As in the case of the leper the point is being made that it is dependent on His will whether it is done or not. This was another of the continual indications that we have that Jesus was like none other.
9.28b ‘They say to him, “Yes, Lord.”
Their reply is a simple confirmation of their faith. They have no doubt. They are confident in His power, as had been the leper and the centurion. This contrasts greatly with the ‘little faith’ of the disciples (8.26). That is not, however, fully fair to the disciples, for these people had concentrated their faith on one great thing, which the disciples would by now know that He could do, but the disciples were being called on to learn slowly that they had to trust Him in every aspect of their lives.
We note again the use of ‘Lord’. This is in a very full sense, even if only because they see Him as the Son of David. But it was heightened by the fact that they saw Him as a unique healer and prophet. It was reverence of the highest magnitude.
9.29 ‘Then he touched their eyes, saying, “According to your faith be it done to you.”
Jesus makes clear that He is responding to their faith. He uses His touch of power, touching their eyes and declaring that He is responding to their faith. The lesson is clear. All who come to the Messiah in faith can have their eyes opened.
9.30 ‘And their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly charged them, saying, “See that no man know it.”
In Isaiah 35.5 it is stated concerning the coming age, ‘the eyes of the blind will be opened’, and here it was happening before all eyes. It was declaring to them, “The Messiah, the son of David’ is among you. The Kingly rule of Heaven is here.’ Then Jesus told them not to spread abroad what had happened. It was a private miracle done within a private house, and that was how He wanted it to remain. As ever Jesus aim was to curtail the crowds and prevent Himself from being swamped.
9.31 ‘But they went forth, and spread abroad his fame in all that land.’
But His words fell on ‘deaf’ ears. They went out and told everywhere what had happened to them and how Jesus had healed them And so Jesus fame spread abroad in all the land. Compare the parallel phrase in verse 26. His fame could not be hidden.
The Healing Of a Man Possessed By a Dumb (and Deaf?) Spirit (9.32-34).
We now come to the final Messianic sign (11.5), both of the section from 8.1, and the threefold series from 9.18. And yet the fact that it does not tie in exactly with 11.5 indicates the honesty of Matthew’s reporting. He would not change the facts in order to suit what he was trying to say. In 11.5 Jesus said, ‘the deaf (kowphoi) hear’, but Matthew illustrates it here with a kowphos (dumb one) who speaks. (In Isaiah 35.5 both are mentioned). In fact it was so regularly true that the dumb were often deaf as well that it is little different, and Matthew could have got away with a slight change in his material. But he refused to do so.
The verses are a masterpiece of condensation, and yet they say all that is necessary. They introduce a demon possessed man who by his possession was made dumb. They describe how the demon is cast out, and the reaction of the crowd. And finally they demonstrate the very opposite reaction of the Pharisees. At least at this stage the crowds are on Jesus’ side. But the opposition is growing.
We have here the final Messianic sign (11.5), the testimony of the crowds, and a contrast with the faith of the centurion. The Gentile centurion had recognised Him as having the very highest authority from God (8.8-9), those who should have known and who should have been welcoming Him, declare His authority as coming from the prince of demons. Unlike the blind men, their eyes are closed.
9.32 ‘And as they went forth, behold, there was brought to him a dumb man possessed with a demon.’
A man is brought to Jesus who was dumb as a result of a spirit which possessed him. As we have seen kowphos could mean both deaf and dumb. But the man was a picture of Israel, which should have been testifying to God, but had nothing to say (see Isaiah 32.4).
9.33 ‘And when the demon was cast out, the dumb man spoke, and the crowds marvelled, saying, “It was never so seen in Israel.” ’
Here Matthew’s emphasis is on two things, the fact that the dumb spoke, and the fact that the crowds marvelled. The casting out of demons has almost become something to be expected (8.16, 32). In any other it would have been the crowning wonder of his life, but with Jesus all expected it. The emphasis on the dumb man speaking reflects Isaiah 32.4. The marvelling of the crowds and their declaration that nothing like it had been seen in Israel underlines Jesus’ fame as going out ‘into all the land’ (9.26, 31).
It should be noted how carefully Jesus distinguishes between demon possession and disease. Here the demon has to be ‘cast out’. There is no thought that Jesus touches the man, in spite of him being dumb. Contrast the case of a deaf and dumb man who is not demon possessed in Mark 7.31-37. There Jesus has the closest of contact with him.
With this brief account Matthew comes to the end of his three triads of miracle stories, three times three indicating full completeness. He has given a complete testimony to Jesus. All can now tell that He is the Coming One promised by God and testified to by John.
9.34 ‘But the Pharisees said, “By the prince of the demons he casts out demons.” ’
But there is one set of people who will never see that. Refusing to believe in Him or accept Him they have to find an alternative explanation to the obvious one. And so they declare that He casts out demons by the prince of demons. Jesus will shortly bring out the fallacy of their position (12.25-29). Meanwhile He just ignores them and carries on with His ministry.
It would seem that this is Matthew’s summing up of the attitude of the Pharisees to all that he has been describing. While the people continue to marvel, and Jesus’ reputation continues to grow, the Pharisees continue to grow more and more sour. At least in Galilee they are finding themselves supplanted.
9.35 ‘And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingly rule, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.’
Matthew now closes off this section, and commences the next one with a summary statement that is very similar to 4.23, indeed so similar that it is clearly intentional. The two verses form an inclusio around 4.24-9.34, summarising what He has been doing all the while. It also links with 11.1.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.